Skip to main content

Full text of "The Modern language review"

See other formats 


VOLUME   IV. 


I 908-9 


CAMBRIDGE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

FETTER  LANE,   E.G. 
C.   F.   CLAY,  MANAGER 


li:  100,  PRINCES  STREET 

Berlin:   A.  A8HER  AND  CO. 

lUtpjts:  P.  A.  BROCKHAUS 

£tta  gorh:  G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

Botnbag  airt  (Calcutta:  MACMILLAN  AND  CO.,  LTD, 


THE 


MODERN    LANGUAGE 
REVIEW 


A    QUARTERLY   JOURNAL    DEMOTED    TO    THE    STUDY 

OF   MEDIEVAL    AND    MODERN    LITERATURE 

AND    PHILOLOGY 


EDITED    BY 


JOHN   G.    ROBERTSON 

WITH    THE    ASSISTANCE    OF   AN 

ADVISORY  BOARD 


VOLUME   IV. 


Jr 


, 


CAMBRIDGE  : 

at  the  University  Press 

IQ09 


P6 


INDEX. 

ARTICLES.  PAGE 

BEATTY,  ARTHUR,  Notes  on  the  Supposed  Dramatic  Character  of  the 

'  Ludi '  in  the  Great  Wardrobe  Accounts  of  Edward  III      .         .  474 

BUCHANAN,  MILTON  A.,  Short  Stories  and  Anecdotes  in  Spanish  Plays  .  178 

CHAMBERS,  E.  K.,  Court  Performances  under  James  the  First  .  .  153 
CHAMBERS,  R.  W.  and  J.  H.  G.  GRATTAN,  The  Text  of '  Piers  Plowman.' 

I.     The  A-Text 357 

DEAKIN,  MARY,  The  Alliteration  of  '  Piers  Plowman ' .  .  .  .  478 

FITZMAURICE-KELLY,  J.,  Espronceda 20 

GRATTAN,  J.  H.  G.,  On  the  Text  of  the  Prose  Portion  of  the  '  Paris 

Psalter ' 185 

HALL,  THEOPHILUS  D.,  Was  'Langland'  the  Author  of  the  C-Text  of 

'  The  Vision  of  Piers  Plowman '  ? 1 

HAMELIUS,  P.,  The  Source  of  Southerne's  '  Fatal  Marriage '  .  .  352 

KASTNER,  L.  E.,  Drummond  of  Hawthornden  and  the  Poets  of  the  Pleiade  329 

KASTNER,  L.  E.,  Spenser's  'Amoretti'  and  Desportes  ....  65 

KER,  W.  P.,  Dante,  Guido  Guinicelli  and  Arnaut  Daniel  .  .  .  145 

LOWENSTEIN,  AGNES,  The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  'Agnes  Bernauer.'  I.  302 

MACAULAY,  G.  C.,  Notes  on  Chaucer 14 

MAYNADIER,  HOWARD,  The  Areopagus  of  Sidney  and  Spenser  .  .  289 

NAPIER,  ARTHUR  S.,  The  'Ancren  Riwle' 433 

NORTHUP,  GEORGE  T.,  '  El  D6mine  Lucae '  of  Lope  de  Vega  and  some 

related  Plays 462 

OLIPHANT,  E.  H.  C.,  Shakspere's  Plays  :  An  Examination,  III,  IV  190,  342 
PARROTT,  T.  M.,  The  Text  of  Chapman's  '  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of 

Charles  Duke  of  Byron ' 40 

SMITH,  G.  C.  MOORE,  Marlowe  at  Cambridge 167 

SPEARING,  EVELYN  M.,  The  Elizabethan  '  Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca '  .  437 
WILLIAMS,  O.  T.,  The  Dialect  of  the  Text  of  the  Northumbrian 

Genealogies       .         .         .         .         .         •         •         •         •         •         •  323 

WILSON,  JOHN  D.,  Anthony  Munday,  Pamphleteer  and  Pursuivant  .  484 

TEXTS  AND   DOCUMENTS. 

BAKER,  A.  T.,  An  Anglo-French  Life  of  Saint  Paul  the  Hermit  .  491 
PRIEBSCH,  J.,  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete,  I,  II  .  .  .70,  200 

YOUNG,  A.  B.,  Ahrimanes  by  Thomas  Love  Peacock  .        .        .        .  217 


vi  Index 

MISCELLANEOUS   NOTES.  PAGE 

BALDENSPERGER,  F.,  Two   Unpublished   Letters  to  Goethe  from  an 

English  Translator  of  '  Goetz  von  Berlichingen '   .         .         .         .  515 

BBNSLY,  E.,  A  Forgotten  English  Translation  of  Barclay's  'Argenis'  392 

BENSLY,  E.,  The  Title  of  Burton's  'Anatomy  of  Melancholy'      .         .  233 

BOAS,  F.  S.,  'Macbeth'  and  'Lingua' 517 

—  BUTLER,  A.  J.,  Dante,  'De  Vulgari  Eloquentia,'  I,  vii         ...  237 

CHAMBERS,  E.  K.,  Ben  Jonson  and  'The  Isle  of  Dogs'       .        .        .  511 

CHAMBERS,  E.  K.,  '  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor,'  i,  iii,  93      .         .         .  88 

CHAMBERS,  E.  K.,  Nathaniel  Field  and  Joseph  Taylor        .        .        .  395 

CHAMBERS,  E.  K.,  The  Date  of  Fletcher's  'The  Chances'  ...  512 

CHAMBERS,  E.  K.,  William  Kempe 88 

CHAMBERS,  R.  W.,  The  Mythical  Ancestor  of  the  Kings  of  East  Anglia  508 

COULTON,  G.  G.,  Chaucer's  Captivity 234 

CUNLIFFE,  JOHN  W.,  Gascoigne  and  Shakespere 231 

GRATTAN,  J.  H.  G.,  Minor  Notes  on  '  Havelok  the  Dane'           .         .  91 

HERFORD,  C.  H.,  Ben  Jonson  and  the  Cardinal  Duperron ...  81 

HUNTER,  M.,  A  Note  on  '  King  Lear ' 84 

LITTLEDALE,  H.,  Was  '  Due  Desert '  Walter  Devereux  ?  510 

ONIONS,  C.  TALBUT,  Some  Early  Middle-English  Spellings          .         .  505 

ONIONS,  C.  TALBUT,  '  To  have  one's  raik '......  507 

ROBERTSON,  J.  G.,  R.  P.  Gillies  and  Goethe 89 

ROYSTER,  JAMES  F.,  English  Tags  in  Matthew  of  Paris       .         .         .  509 

TOYNBEE,  PAGET,  The  Sepulchres  at  Pola  referred  to  by  Dante          .  390 

WEEKLEY,  E.,  English  '  Mullion,'  French  '  Meneau '     .        .        .        .  396 

WILLIAMS,  O.  T.,  'Exodus,'  11.  56  ff.      .        .        ...        .        .        .  507* 

WILLIAMS,  W.  H.,  Occleve,  '  De  Regimine  Principum,'  299,  621         .  235 

WILLIAMS,  W.  H.,  'Pierce  the  Plowmans  Crede,'  372          .         .         .  235 

WOODBINE,  GEORGE  E.,  Fragment  of  an  LTnknown  Middle-English  Poem  236 

DISCUSSIONS. 

BERDAN,   JOHN    M.    and    L.    E.    KASTNER,   Wyatt   and    the    French 

Sonneteers          .                          ........  240 

BRADLEY,  A.  C.,  The  Locality  of  'King  Lear,'  Act  i,  sc.  ii        .         .  238 

BRETT-SMITH,  H.  F.  B.,  'Ahrimanes.'     By  T.  L.  Peacock  .        .        .  521 

OMOND,  T.  S.,  Milton  and  Syllabism 93 

REVIEWS. 

Anglade,  J.,  Les  Troubadours  (H.  J.  Chaytor) 426 

Aubry,  P.,  La  Rhythuiique  Musicale  des  Troubadours  et  des  Trouveres 

(Barbara  Smythe) 540 

Beck,  J.  B.,  Die  Melodien  der  Troubadours  (Barbara  Smythe)  .         .  540 
Berthon,  H.  E.,  et  V.  G.  Starkey,  Tables  synoptiques  de  Phonologic  de 

1'ancien  fran^ais  (A.  T.  Baker) 428 

Bethmann,  J.,  Uutersuchungen  liber  die  mittelhochdeutscher  Dichtung 

vom  Grafen  Rudolf  (R.  Priebsch) 128 

Biagi,  V.,  La  Quaestio  de  Aqua  et  Terra  di  Dante  Alighieri  (P.  H. 

Wicksteed) 254 


Index  vii 

REVIEWS  cont.  PAGE 

Bonilla  y  San  Martm,  A.,  Libros  de  Caballerias,  I  (H.  A.  Rennert)        .  422 

Chadwick,  H.  M.,  The  Origin  of  the  English  Nation  (R.  W.  Chambers)  262 

Coleridge,  S.  T.,  Biographia  Literaria  edited  by  J.  Shawcross  (0.  Elton)  119 

Cotarelo  y  Mori,  E.,  Comedias  de  Tirso  de  Molina,  II  (H.  A.  Rennert)  .  422 

Coulton,  G.  G.,  Chaucer  and  his  England  (G.  C.  Macaulay)       .        .  525 
Crawford,  J.  P.  W.,  Life  and  Works  of  C.  S.  de  Figueroa  (J.  Fitz- 

inaurice-Kelly) ...........  425 

x  Dante  Alighieri,  La  vita  nova,  trad,  par  H.  Cochin  (Lonsdale  Ragg)      .  552 

Dante  Alighieri,  La  vita  nuova,  edited  by  H.  Oelsner  (Lonsdale  Ragg)  .  552 

Dobell,  B.,  The  Partiall  Law  (W.  W.  Greg) 118 

Dodd,  L.  H.,  Glossary  of  Wulfstan's  Homilies  (0.  T.  Williams)         .  267 

Farinelli,  A.,  Dante  e  la  Francia  (P.  F.  Willert)         ....  398 

Geiger,  L.,  Goethe  und  die  Seinen  (Jessie  Crosland)   ....  537 

Grasserie,  R.  de  la,  Etude  scientifique  sur  1'Argot  (G.  A.  Parry)       .  544 

Greg,  W.  W.,  Henslowe's  Diary  (E.  K.  Chambers)       ....  407 

Greg,  W.  W.,  Pastoral  Poetry  and  Pastoral  Drama  (H.  J.  C.  Grierson)  .  110 

Hammond,  E.  P.,  Chaucer :  a  Bibliographical  Manual  (G.  C.  Macaulay)  526 
Helmholtz,  A.  A.,  Indebtedness  of  S.  T.  Coleridge  to  A.  von  Schlegel 

(0.  Elton) 119 

Holthausen,  F.,  An  Enterlude  of  Welth  and  Helth  (W.  W.  Greg)     .  115  v 

Juge,  C.,  Jacques  Peletier  du  Mans  (F.  Gohin) 269 

Kaulfuss-Diesch,  C.   H.,  Inszenierung  des  deutschen  Dramas  an  der 

Wende  des  16.  und  17.  Jahrh.  (M.  Blakemore  Evans)          .        .  531 

Lemaitre,  J.,  Jean  Racine  (H.  F.  Stewart) 546 

Logeman,  H.,  Tenuis  en  Media  (R.  A.  Williams)         .               •  .         .  553  , 

Lucas,  St  John,  Oxford  Book  of  French  Verse  (A.  Tilley)  102 

Mackail,  J.  W.,  Coleridge's  Literary  Criticism  (O.  Elton)   .         .         .  119 

Mahn,  P.,  Guy  de  Maupassant  (R.  M.  Meyer) 548 

Markham,  C.,  Life  of  Lazarillo  de  Tonnes,  transl.  by  (J.  Fitzmaurice- 

Kelly) 258 

Menendez  Pidal,  R.,  Primera  Crrinica  General,  I  (H.  A.  Rennert)      .  422 

Menendez  y  Pelayo,  M.,  Orfgenes  de  la  Novela,  II  (H.  A.  Rennert).  422 
Murch,  H.  S.,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  '  The  Knight  of  the  Burning 

Pestle'  (W.  W.  Greg) 415 

Nyrop,  Kr.,  Grammaire  historique  de  la  langue  fran§aise,  III  (A.  T. 

Baker)       . 542 

Schipper,  J.,  Beitrage  und  Studien  zur  englischen  Kultur-  und  Literatur- 

geschichte  (G.  C.  Moore  Smith)     . 

Schrotter,  W.,  Ovid  und  die  Troubadours  (H.  J.  Chaytor)  427 
Seydel,  P.,  Experimentelle  Versuche  iiber  die  labialen  Verschlusslaute 

(R.  A.  Williams) 553 

Smith,  M.  Bentinck,  Chaucer's  'Prologue'  and  'Knight's  Tale'  (Allen 

Mawer)      .  - 

Smith,  G.  C.  Moore,  Club  Law  (W.  W.  Greg)     . 

Spenser,  E.,  Poetical  Works,  edited  by  R.  E.  Neil  Dodge  (Percy  W.  Long)  529 

Tatlock,  J.  S.  P.,  Development  and  Chronology  of  Chaucer's  Works 

(G.  C.  Macaulay) 

Tennant,  G.  B.,  Ben  Jonson's  'New  Inn'  (W.  W.  Greg)    ...  413 


viii  Index 

REVIEWS  cont.  PAGE 

Thomas,  L.    P.,   Le   Lyrisme  et  la   Preciosite   cultistes   en   Espagne 

(M.  A.  Buchanan) 551 

Upham,  A.  H.,  French  Influence  in  English  Literature  (L.  E.  Kastner)  549 
Villa,  A.  R.,  Crdnicas  del  Gran  Capitan  (H.  A.  Rennert)  ...  422 
Villey,  P.,  Les  Sources  et  1'lSvolution  des  Essais  de  Montaigne  (A.  Tilley)  401 
Ward,  A.  W.  and  A.  R.  Waller,  Cambridge  History  of  English  Litera- 
ture, II  (W.  Lewis  Jones) 106 

MINOR   NOTICES. 

Bourdillon,  F.  W.,  Early  Editions  of  the  'Roman  de  la  Rose'  .         .  431 

"-  Capetti,  L'  Anima  e  1'  Arte  di  Dante 274 

Cervantes,  M.  de,  Cinco  Novelas  Ejemplares        .         .         .         .  432 

Cook,  A.  S.  and  C.  B.  Tinker,  Translations  from  Old  English  Prose       ,  431  i 

•   Cossio,  A.,  Sulla  'Vita  Nuova'  di  Dante 274 

Gascoigne,  G.,  Complete  Works,  ed.  by  J.  W.  Cunliffe,  I   .         .         .  130 

Goethe  Literature,  Recent  English 275 

Hadow,  W.  H.,  Shakespeare's  Sonnets  and  'A  Lover's  Complaint'    .  130 

Huszar,  G..  Moliere  et  1'Espagne 131 

Lectura  Dantis  Genovese 274 

Lloyd,  R.  J.,  Northern  English 272 

Mindesmeerker  af  Danmarks  Nationallitteratur    .         .         .         .         .  132 

Osgood,  C.  G.,  The  Pearl 132 

Schiick,  H.,  Folknamnet  Geatas  i  den  fornengelska  dikten  Beowulf  .  273 

Spingarn,  J.  E.,  Critical  Essays  of  the  Seventeenth  Century      .         .  271 

Weightman,  J.,  Language  and  Dialect  of  the  Later  Old  English  Poetry  272  « 

*•  Williams,  J.,  Dante  as  a  Jurist     ........  131 

Wilson,  L.  R.,  Chaucer's  Relative  Constructions 273 

NEW7   PUBLICATIONS .133,277,564 


THEOPHILUS    D.    HALL  3 

Whensoever  a  new  edition  of  Piers  is  issued  for  the  benefit  of  the 
general  reader,  it  may  be  hoped  that  it  will  comprise  both  of  the  earlier 
texts.  The  B-text  will  in  all  probability  continue  to  be  the  popular 
version ;  but  every  genuine  student  of  our  literature  will  desire  to  have 
before  him  the  powerful  original  sketch  on  which  this  was  based.] 

The  Vision  now  holds  an  assured  place  among  the  greater  treasures 
of  our  literature.  The  form  of  poetic  structure  to  which  it  belongs  has 
passed  away,  but  it  is  that  which  comprises  such  imperishable  national 
productions  as  the  epic  of  Beowulf,  the  Csedmon  poems,  and  that  noble 
fragment  The  Battle  of  Maldon.  But  there  is  no  other  great  work 
which  has  come  down  to  us  in  so  widely  diverging  forms.  Apart  from 
minor  variations  in  MSS.,  which  are  exceedingly  numerous,  the  poem 
exists  in  three  leading  forms — now  generally  known  as  texts  A,  B 
and  C  respectively.  The  earliest  of  these,  consisting  of  a  Prologue  and 
eleven  or  perhaps  twelve  passus,  or  cantos,  and  extending  to  some 
2500  lines,  was  written  about  1362  (the  A-text).  This  was  enlarged 
and  re-cast  probably  about  fifteen  years  later ;  the  enlargements  com- 
prising ten  new  cantos,  in  addition  to  a  considerable  expansion  of  the 
original  work.  This  is  text  B.  The  latest,  or  C-text,  appears  from 
internal  evidence  to  have  been  issued  some  fifteen  years  later  still. 
This  is  the  form  of  the  work  reproduced. in  Dr  Whitaker's  monumental 
edition  (London,  J.  Murray,  1813);  the  publication  of  which  marks  the 
re-emergence  of  our  author  after  an  eclipse  of  more  than  two  centuries. 
This  recension,  based  on  its  two  predecessors,  though  differing  widely 
from  both,  has  been  accepted  as  authentic  by  the  distinguished  scholar 
who  has  done  more  for  the  study  of  Piers  than  any  other  man,  Professor 
Skeat,  whose  opinion  is  supported  by  Professor  Saintsbury,  Dr  Gar- 
nett,  and  others.  M.  Jusserand,  too,  who  has  made  a  special  and 
sympathetic  study  of  the  Vision1,  leaves  the  authenticity  of  the  C-text 
unquestioned.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  ignored  by  the  sixteenth 
century  editors,  who  printed  only  the  B-text ;  while  Mr  Thomas  Wright, 
in  the  Introduction  to  his  own  excellent  edition  of  the  same,  expresses 
the  opinion  that  the  variations  (shown  in  C)  were  made  '  by  some  other 
person,  who  was  perhaps  induced  by  his  own  political  sentiments  to 
modify  passages,  arid  was  gradually  led  on  to  publish  a  revision  of  the 
whole '  (Introduction,  xli). 

The  present  writer  hopes  to  be  able  to  show  that  strong  internal 
evidence  exists  for  reconsidering  what  has  hitherto  been  the  generally 

1  L'epopee  mystique  de  W.  Langland.     Paris,  1893. 

\ 2 


4  Was  'Langland '  Author  of  the  C-text  of  'Piers  Plowman '? 

accepted  view ;  and  that  not  only  is  the  C-text  a  debasement  of  the 
author's  own  work,  but  that  the  nature  of  many  of  the  changes  pre- 
cludes the  supposition  of  their  being  from  the  hand  which  penned  either 
the  original  (A)  or  the  enlarged  (B)  Vision. 

The  more  serious  changes  introduced  by  the  compiler  of  the  C-text 
may  be  classed  thus : 

I.  Omissions. 

II.  Insertions  of  new  matter. 

III.  Structural  changes,  involving  interference  with  the  author's 
own  plan  and  arrangement. 

I.  Omissions.  These  are  exceedingly  numerous;  indeed  they  are 
to  be  noted  in  almost  every  part  of  the  work.  Some  are  limited  to  a 
few  lines,  or  even  to  a  single  line.  In  other  cases  entire  pages  have 
been  suppressed ;  and  only  in  a  few  is  it  easy  to  account  for  or  justify 
the  excision. 

(1)  A  signal  instance  occurs  in  the  opening  of  the  poem,  where  the 
well-known  description  of  the  poet's  environment  on  '  Malverne  hilles ' 
is  curtailed  by  the  suppression  of  one  whole  line  and  parts  of  several 
others.  In  the  two  earlier  texts  this  passage  reads  as  follows : 

Ac  on  a  Mornyng'  on  Malverne  hulles 

Me  bifel  a  ferly  [a  wonder]-  of  fairy  me  thoughte  ; 

I  was  wery  forwandered    aud  went  me  to  reste 

Under  a  brode  banke1  bi  a  burnes  side : 

And  as  I  lay  and  lenede-  and  loked  on  the  wateres 

I  slombered  into  a  slepyng'  it  sweyed  [sounded]  so  murie. 

(ProL,  5—10.) 
Compare  with  this  the  form  which  it  is  made  to  take  in  C : 

Ac  on  a  May  mornyng'  on  Malverne  hulles 

Me  bifel  for  to  slepe'  for  weryness  of  wanderyng  ; 

And  in  a  launde  as  ich  lay  lenede  ich  and  slepte. 

Six  lines  reduced  to  three,  when  not  one  of  the  six  can  be  spared ! 
For  this  is  surely  one  of  the  most  delightful  morsels  in  our  earlier 
literature.  Do  we  not  feel,  too,  that  in  passing  from  the  one  to  the 
other  we  have  entered  a  different  and  less  genial  atmosphere  ?  The 
vague  but  suggestive  mention  of  a  fairy  world  is  withdrawn ;  the  '  brode 
banke '  and  with  it  the  '  burn '  with  its  '  murie  sweying '  are  gone ;  and 
worst  of  all,  the  very  attitude  of  the  poet,  with  eye  intent  upon  the 
rippling  water  but  feasting  itself  on  a  vision  of  its  own,  disappears  with 
them.  In  short  we  have  exchanged  poetry  for  mere  verse,  and  indif- 


THEOPHILUS    D.    HALL  5 

ferent  verse  too1.  Is  it  probable  or  even  conceivable  that  the  author 
should  have  made  havoc  of  his  own  work  after  this  fashion  ? 

(2)  Another  remarkable  omission  occurs  in  the  highly  dramatic 
scene  where  the  Lady  Mede  is  pleading  her  cause  before  the  King.     To 
us  the  cancelled  passage  is  doubly  interesting  from  its  apparent  reference 
to  one  of  the  most  striking  incidents  in  the  Hundred  Years'  War;  when 
Edward,  awed  by  a  terrific  storm  of  thunder  and  lightning,  was  moved 
to  consent  to  terms  of  peace — the  '  Great  Peace '  of  Bretigny,  1360. 
Mede  is  retorting  on  Conscience  the  charges  brought  against  herself  by 
him: 

In  Normandy  was  he  nouhte'  noyed  for  my  sake ; 
Ac  ]>ow  )>iself  sothely  shamedest  him  ofte, 
Grope  into  a  cabair  for  cold  of  jn  nailes, 
Wenedest  that  wynter1  wolde  have  lastede  evere, 
And  draddest  to  be  ded'  for  a  dym  cloude, 
And  hiedest  homeward'  for  hunger  of  )>i  wombe. 

(B,  in,  188  ff.) 

Here  one  is  at  a  loss  to  conceive  why  so  pregnant  a  passage  should 
have  been  cancelled  by  anyone ;  much  more  by  the  author.  Rude  as 
it  is  in  style,  it  is  an  intensely  vivid  picture  that  it  presents  to  us.  The 
seeming  endless  winter,  the  menacing  cloud,  the  conscience-stricken 
king  and  his  men  creeping  into  hovels  in  the  bitter  cold,  the  panic  and 
the  hunger,  had  doubtless  stamped  themselves  upon  the  minds  of  men 
— as  in  the  case  of  the  sufferings  of  our  troops  in  the  Crimea  in  the 
winter  of  1854. 

(3)  In  Pass,  v  (C,  Vl)  out  of  some  sixty  lines  devoted  to  the  confession 
of  Envy,  about  fifty  have  wholly  disappeared.     This  is  a  part  of  the 
poem  which  in  the  earlier  text  is  highly  elaborated.     Pale,  shivering  as 
one  palsied,  a  knife  at  his  girdle,  his  lean  cheeks  suggesting  the  hue  of 
a  leek  '  that  has  lain  long  in  the  sun,'  Envy  bites  his  lips  and  clenches 
his  fist ;  and 

Eche  a  word  that  he  warp*  was  of  a  nadder's  tonge. 

Hardly  one  of  these  vivid  touches  is  retained  in  C,  though  the  por- 
traiture is  eked  out  by  some  features  borrowed  from  another  part  of  the 
poem  (B,  xin,  326  ff.).  The  inimitable  confession  itself  is  treated  in 
the  same  unsparing  fashion.  All  the  quaint  homely  tales — how  he 
would  be  gladder  'that  Gibb  had  mischance '  than  that  he  had  himself 
'  won  a  weye  of  Essex  cheese ' — how  in  the  market  he  had  hailed  as  his 
friend  the  man  he  most  hated — '  he  is  doughtier  than  I ;  I  dare  do  no 

1   The  line,  'Me  bifel  for  to  slepe  etc.,'  is  deficient  in  alliteration  and  inferior  in 
structure.     Compare  it  with  the  original,   'Me  bifel  a  ferly,  etc.' 


6   Was  'Langland '  Author  of  the  C-text  of '  Piers  Plowman '  P 

other ' — how  in  church  at  the  moment  when  all  are  bidden  to  pray  for 
others,  all  his  prayer  had  been  for  sorrow  to  befal  those  who  had  done 
him  some  petty  wrong — how,  when  he  turns  his  eye  from  the  altar  and 
beholds  Eleyne  '  in  her  new  cote/  he  wishes  it  were  his  '  and  all  the 
web  after ' — all  these  absolutely  disappear.  Can  this  wholesale  destruc- 
tion be  the  author's  work  ? 

(4)  The  two  following  cantos  are  altered  through  and  through ; 
and  the  changes  include  many  omissions.     In  ix  much  of  the  discourse 
of  '  Wit '  is  discarded ;  and  that  of  '  Dame  Study '  in  x  is  still  more 
ruthlessly  cut  down.     It  is  impossible  within  present  limits  to  speak 
particularly  of  these  omissions.     But  much  that  is  of  real  interest  has 
been  discarded.     Among  the  fragments  cast  aside  is  the  interesting 
passage  in  which  the  author  laments  the  passing  away  of  the  fine  old 
custom  of  common  meals  in  the  great  feudal  halls : 

Elyng  [wretched]  is  the  halle'  each  day  in  the  wyke 

There  the  lord  ne  the  lady  liketh  not  to  sit. 

Now  hath  eche  rich  a  rule1  to  eten  by  himselve 

In  a  pryve  parlour'  for  pore  mennes  sake  (i.e.  to  shun  them). 

(B,  x,  94  ff.) 

(5)  In  Pass,  xil — the  discourse  of '  Ymaginatif ' — we  miss  a  striking 
autobiographic  passage,  of  which  it  will  be  needful  to  speak  under 
another  head.     Along  with  it  go  some  of  our  author's  most  vivid  and 
picturesque  lines ;  notably  those  in  which  he  tells  of  his  eager  desire  to 
know  the  ways  of '  Kynd '  [Nature]  : 

Where  the  flowers  catch  their  colours*  so  clere  and  so  bright, 
and  notes  how 

He  is  the  pie's  patron'  &  putteth  it  in  here  ere 
There  the  thorn  is  thikkest'  to  buylde  &  brede. 

(B,  xil,  220  ff.) 

Further,  the  latter  part  of  Pass,  xm  and  the  whole  of  xiv,  comprising 
the  episode  of '  Haukyn,'  have  been  completely  transformed,  many  entire 
pages  being  cancelled.  With  this  it  will  be  more  convenient  to  deal  in 
speaking  of  'structural  changes.'  From  this  point  onward  both  the 
insertions  and  the  omissions  become  fewer  and  fewer,  and  in  the  last 
four  cantos  there  are  none  calling  for  special  notice. 

II.  Additions.  (1)  These  like  the  omissions  begin  with  the 
Prologue.  Indeed  the  compiler  loses  no  time  in  displaying  his  itch 
for  interpolation ;  inserting  almost  at  the  very  beginning  an  altogether 


THEOPHILTJS   D.    HALL  7 

futile  and  pithless  line1.  Passing  over  this  and  the  four  prosaic  lines 
introduced  as  a  sort  of  argument  to  the  entire  vision,  we  are  presently 
confronted  by  an  insertion  which  can  scarcely  fail  to  jar  on  ears  attuned 
to  the  genial  temper  of  the  rest  of  the  Prologue  (C,  I,  94 — 124).  It 
consists  of  a  fierce  diatribe  against  priests  in  general,  whose  devices  are 
unsparingly  denounced  and  who  are  themselves  menaced  with  a  judg- 
ment sorer  than  that  which  befel  the  guilty  sons  of  Eli.  The  whole  of 
this  passage  savours  too  much  of  the  partisan ;  and  the  author  of  the 
Vision  was  no  partisan,  either  in  doctrine  or  in  polity.  He  had  a  good 
word  to  say  for  the  '  pore  freres  '  even  when  most  discredited  (B,  xv,  320), 
and  would  hardly  have  dealt  out  this  sweeping  censure  on  the  order  to 
which  he  himself  appears  to  have  been  attached.  The  passage  is  further 
discredited  by  the  total  lack  of  alliteration  in  parts  of  it — a  feature 
quite  without  parallel  in  the  earlier  texts — and  the  remarkable  variations 
which  it  exhibits  in  the  MSS.2 

(2)  In  Pass.  II  (B,  l)  an  insertion  occurs,  the  sheer  ineptness  of 
which  is  sufficient  to  discredit  it.     Our  author,  after  his  wont,  had  cited 
in  illustration  a  text  from  the  Vulgate :  '  Ponam  pedem  in  aquilone,  et 
ero  similis  altissimo';  'I  will  set  my  foot  in  the  North...'  (see  Is.,  xiv, 
14).     The  writer  of  C  must  needs  turn  aside  to  discuss  the  question 
'  why  the  wretched  Lucifer '  should  have  his  quarters  in  the  North  ? 
He  tells  us  that : 

Ne  were  it  for  northern  meir  anon  ich  wolde  telle : 

and  then,  telling  us  after  all,  wanders  still  further  away  to  gossip  about 
'hinds  feeling  the  cold  most  on  holidays.'  The  real  Piers  is  always 
homely  and  sometimes  tedious,  but  he  is  always  to  the  point. 

(3)  The  most   outrageous   case  of  irrelevant  insertion  occurs  in 
Pass,  iv  (B,  in),  where  a  long  scholastic  discussion  is  foisted  into  the 
speech  of '  Conscience,'  in  the  dramatic  trial  scene.     Actually  the  king's 
judgment  is  held  in  suspense  in  order  that  he  may  hear  a  lengthy 
argument  on  the  nature  of  Direct  and   Indirect  Relation,   and   the 
Concord  of  Adjective  and  Substantive,  with  theological  illustrations. 
And  this  poor  arid  stuff  runs  on  for  a  full  hundred  lines ! 

(4)  We  now  come  to  what,  from  its  bearing  both  on  the  authenticity 
question  and  on  the  character  of  the  poet,  is  the  most  significant  of  all 
the  insertions  in  C.     It  forms  a  prologue  to  Canto  vi  (B,  v),  and  is 
professedly  autobiographical.     In  fact  it  has  formed  the  basis  of  most 

1  'And  saw  many  cellis-  and  selkouthe  things'  (C,  Prol.,  5). 

2  Dr  Skeat  seeks  to  restore  the  true  alliterated  text  by  a  collation  of  MSS. 


8  Was  'Langland'  Author  of  the  C-text  of  Piers  Plowman'? 

recent  portraitures  of  the  author  of  Piers1.  Yet  the  very  first  line  of  it 
rouses  suspicion : 

Thus  ich  awaked,  God  wot'  whanne  ich  woned  in  Cornhulle. 

How  comes  it  that  when,  as  all  remember,  the  poet  '  slombered  into  his 
sleping '  on  Malvern  hills,  we  have  him  awaking  on  Cornhill  ?  Professor 
Skeat  speaks  of  the  adroitness  with  which  the  new  matter  has  been 
adjusted  to  the  old :  how  would  he  explain  this  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  If  this  be  Langland's  own  account  of  himself,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  defend  him  from  the  charge  of  being  himself  one  of 
those  very  idlers  and  '  lollers'  upon  whom  he  has  vented  his  scorn :  '  Grete 
lobies  that  loth  were  to  swynke '  (Prol.).  For  here  he  is  made  to  con- 
fess that  when  he  was  hale  and  strong  all  his  care  had  been  to  get  good 
fare  and  shirk  hard  work.  He  had  '  lymes  to  labour  with,'  and  yet  cared 
only  '  to  drynke  and  to  slepe.'  When  challenged  by  '  Reason ' — '  Could 
he  not  make  himself  of  use,  bind  sheaves,  or  reap,  or  keep  corn  from 
thieves,  or  mend  shoes,  or  keep  cows,  swine  or  geese  ? ' — he  had  un- 
blu  shingly  replied  in  the  very  accents  of  the  idle  vagrant : 

Certes...and  so  God  me  helpe, 

Ich  am  too  walk  to  worche'  with  sykel  or  with  sithe ; 

And  too  long,  leyf  me*  low  for  to  stoupe 

Now  that  he  has  reached  middle  age,  he  is  well  content  with  the  life  of 
a  clerical  loafer,  '  hanging  about  men's  hatches,'  ready  with  his  venal 
prayer,  looking  to  be 

welcome  whanne  ich  come*  other  while  in  a  monthe, 
Now  with  him  &  now  with  hure'  &  thus  gate  ich  begge.... 

M.  Jusserand  speaks  of  our  author's  'passionate  sincerity.'  Can  it  be 
then  that  he  here  stands  self-convicted  of  palpable  hypocrisy  ?  He  is  a 
prophet,  and  one  of  the  main  points  of  his  gospel  is  '  work.'  Christ  is 
for  him  not  only  the  King  of  kings ;  he  is  the  Plowman  too.  He  calls  in 
Famine  to  chastise  the  idlers,  and  manifestly  enjoys  the  spectacle,  when 
at  the  bidding  of  their  pitiless  taskmaster,  they  shorten  their  skirts 
and  fall  to  in  earnest  with  shovel  and  spade.  Is  this  all  mere  verbiage  ? 
Surely  the  ring  of  Piers's  sincerity  is  too  clear.  We  instinctively  trust 
him.  We  need  not  shrink  from  the  thought  of  our  author  gaining  a 
livelihood  by  rendering  petty  clerical  services  to  such  as  might  choose  to 
employ  him.  What  else  was  open  to  him  ?  Literature  was  no  paying 
profession,  and  there  were  no  wealthy  patrons  among  the  class  for  whom 
mainly  the  Vision  was  written. 

1  Professor  Jack  of  Illinois  has  ably  maintained  the  opposite  view :  Journal  of 
Germanic  Philology,  in,  393. 


THEOPHILUS    D.    HALL  9 

As  far  as  the  B-text  is  concerned,  there  are  passages  which  help  us 
to  form  a  juster  estimate  of  the  author  as  a  man;  though  it  is  signifi- 
cant that  the  greater  part  of  these  have  been  discarded  by  the  compiler 
of  C.  One  such  occurs  in  Pass,  xm,  B,  where  '  Ymaginatif '  is  repre- 
sented as  pastorally  remonstrating  with  the  author  on  his  past  life. 
But  it  is  noteworthy  that,  though  the  monitor  speaks  of  the  'wylde 
wantonesse '  of  his  youth,  the  only  definite  charge  brought  against  him 
is  that  very  use  of  his  time  which  for  us  lifts  him  out  of  the  obscurity 
of  the  past : 

And  l?ow  medlest  |>e  with  makynges  [versifying]'  &  myghtest 

go  seye  J>i  sauter 

And  pray  for  hem  }>at  giveth  )>e  bred'  for  ]>ere  are  bokes  ynowe 
To  telle  men  what  Do-wel  is-  Do-bet  &  Do-best  bothe, 
And  prechours  to  preuve  what  it  is'  of  many  a  peyre1  freres. 

(B,  xii,  16  ff.) 

It  is  difficult  to  think  ill  of  the  man  who  could  talk  of  himself  in  this 
frank  way.  The  cheery  tone  of  his  reply  indeed  shows  that  the  charge 
was  not  very  deeply  felt;  nay  rather,  that  he  is  taking  this  mode  of 
justifying  his  'pastime'  to  the  world.  He  reminds  his  monitor  that 
wise  and  holy  men  before  him  have  solaced  themselves  as  he  has  done. 
Still  such  is  his  earnestness  for  Do-wel,  that,  could  he  but  find  a  guide, 

Wolde  I  nevere  do  werke'  but  wende  to  holicherche 

And  there  bydde  my  bedes  [prayers]'  but  whan  I  eat  or  slepe. 

(Ib.,  28.) 

Already  the  man's  simplicity  has  won  our  hearts ;  and  the  impression 
is  deepened  by  another  passage  even  more  significant,  of  which  we  give 
the  vital  portion : 

Ac  after  my  wakynge1  it  was  wonder  longe 

Ere  I  coude  kyndely  know  what  was  Do-wel. 

And  so  my  wit  weex  and  wanyed'  till  I  a  fool  were  : 

And  some  lakkede  [chid]  my  life'  allowed  [praised]  it  fewe, 

And  lete  [held]  me  for  a  lorel'  and  loth  to  reverencen 

Lords  or  ladies'  or  any  lif  [living  thing]  else  ; 

As  persons  in  pelure  [fur]'  with  pendaunts  of  silver, 

To  sergeaunts  ne  to  swiche'  said  I  not  ones 

'  God  loke  [keep]  you  lordis  ! '   ne  loutede  faire, 

That  [so  that]  folk  helden  me  a  fool'  &  in  that  folie  I  raved. 

(B,  xv,  1  ff.) 

Surely  it  is  no  mere  idler  or  sensualist  that  we  have  here.  Pondering 
these  character-sketches  of  the  author  we  seem  to  gather  that  from  the 
beginning  he  had  been  unlike  others.  Imagination  had  attended  him 
from  the  cradle.  '  Youthful  wantonness '  had  tempted  him,  we  know  not 

1  It  was  part  of  the  rule  of  the  Observant  Friars,  an  order  founded  in  1373,  to  pay 
their  visits  in  pairs  as  a  security  against  scandals ;  and  there  seems  to  be  a  reference  to 
this  here. 


10  Was  'Langland1  Author  of  the  C-text  of 'Piers  Ploivman'f 

how  far ;  but  his  chief  solace  had  been  in  those  '  makynges '  which  to 
the  world  seemed  mere  idleness.  He  is  so  earnestly  bent  on  finding 
the  difficult  narrow  path,  that  his  wits  '  wax  and  wane '  with  the  inward 
struggle.  He  is  too  deeply  absorbed  to  attend  to  the  common  courtesies 
of  life.  Like  the  first  emissaries  of  the  Gospel,  he  '  salutes  no  man  by 
the  way ' ;  he  has  no  '  God  bless  you  '  for  lord  or  lady  or  furred  officer  of 
the  law,  but  passes  as  one  '  in  a  mase.'  Have  we  not  here  the  very 
target  of  misrepresentation  ?  Idler,  fool,  fanatic,  are  the  ready  labels  of 
the  world  for  such  men.  But  a  deeper  and  truer  characterization  may 
perhaps  be  discerned  in  the  words  the  poet  has  put  into  the  mouth  of 
'  Ymaginatif: 

I  am  Ymaginatif,  quoth  he1  ydel  was  I  nevere 
Though  I  sitte  by  myself-  in  sikeness  &  in  helthe. 

(B,  xii,  1.) 

III.  Structural  changes.  (1)  Under  this  head,  the  first  thing  to 
strike  the  reader  is  a  needless  and  vexatious  alteration  of  arrangement. 
In  the  earlier  texts  the  opening  section  appears  as  the  Prologue ;  and  a 
prologue  it  is.  In  it  the  author,  as  it  were,  spreads  his  canvas,  and 
boldly  sketches  in  his  scenery  and  his  characters.  Earth,  heaven,  hell, 
king,  lords,  commons,  churchmen,  pilgrims,  jongleurs,  hawkers,  vaga- 
bonds— all  the  farrago  libelli  is  here.  Text  C  counts  this  as  Pass.  I,  thus 
throwing  out  the  enumeration  of  the  following  cantos,  and  at  the  same 
time  obscuring  the  structure  of  the  whole.  This  is  surely  more  like 
the  doing  of  one  who  imperfectly  grasped  the  intention  of  the  author 
rather  than  that  of  the  author  himself. 

(2)  The  compiler  of  C  shows  great  freedom  in  quarrying  blocks 
out  of  the  earlier  fabric  and  working  them  into  the  new.  Thus  Pass, 
vi,  C  (B,  v)  has  been  enriched  with  spoil  from  the  discourse  of '  Clergy ' 
(B,  x)  and  from  the  episode  of  Haukyn ;  and  '  Langland's '  famous 
prophecy  becomes  a  part  of  the  discourse  of '  Reason ' — suffering  loss  in 
the  transfer.  The  earlier  form  of  this  remarkable  prediction  is  this : 

Ac  there  shall  come  a  kyng-  &  confesse  you  religiouses 

And  bete  yow  as  the  bible  telleth'  for  brekynge  of  youre  reule. 

And  thanne  shall  the  Abbot  of  Abingdon'  and  alle  his  issue  for  evere 

Have  a  knok  of  a  kynge'  &  incurable  the  wounde.  (B,  x,  317  ff'.) 

In  the  C-text  the  last  two  lines  read : 

For  the  Abbot  of  Engelonde-  and  the  abbesse  his  niece 

Shal  have  a  knok  on  here  crounes'  and  incurable  the  wounde. 

(C,  vi,  177.) 

Professor  Skeat  acknowledges  that  Langland  has  '  considerably  spoiled 
his  famous  prophecy '  (vol.  in,  Ixx). 


THEOPHILUS    D.    HALL  11 

(3)  Passus  x.     This  section  of  the  poem  has  been  treated  with  very 
great  freedom,  not  to  say  roughness,  in  C.     In  the  earlier  text,  the  poet, 
after  listening  to  a  lengthened  homily  from  '  Clergy,'  declares  himself 
'  little  the  wiser '  for  it,  and  gives  frank  expression  to  his  perplexities. 
His  sense  of  justice  is  outraged  by  a  scheme  of  salvation  which  declares 
Aristotle  and  Solomon,  both  of  them  approved  masters  of  '  sapience/ 
eternally  damned.     His  audacity  draws  down  upon  him  the  anger  of 
'  Scripture  '  who  rebukes  him  smartly : 

Then  Scripture  scorned  me...  (B,  xi,  1  ff.) ; 

so  much  so  that  he  is  moved  to  tears. 

This  honest  frankness  on  the  part  of  the  poet  seems  to  have  proved 
too  strong  meat  for  the  editor  of  C,  who  takes  the  overbold  speech  from 
him  and  assigns  it  to  a  character  labelled  as  '  Rechelesness  ' — or  '  Pro- 
fanity.' But  in  doing  so  he  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  one  change 
mostly  necessitates  another,  and  has  left  the  rebuke  administered  to  the 
poet  (or  his  hero)  still  standing  as  in  the  earlier  text  without  anything 
to  justify  it !  There  are  other  incongruities  resulting  from  the  changes 
made  in  this  part  of  the  poem,  less  glaring  but  no  less  real,  which  the 
careful  reader  will  note.  Taken  together  they  form  a  body  of  evidence 
which  cannot  be  ignored  by  anyone  desirous  of  forming  a  sound  judg- 
ment as  to  the  provenance  of  the  later  text. 

(4)  The  episode  of  Haukyn.     In  the  earlier  text  this  occupies  the 
whole  of  one  canto  and  half  of  another  (B,  XIII,  xiv),  and  extends  to  no 
fewer  than  550  lines.     In  C  a  considerable  portion  is  detached  and 
worked  in  elsewhere  (C,  vi),  and  the  remainder  abridged  and  deprived 
of  all  its  individuality.     The  very  name  '  Haukyn,'  which  marks  the 
most  real  and  lifelike  of  all  the  characters  in  this  part  of  the  work, 
is  suppressed,  and  only  a  pale  abstraction  labelled  vita  activa  is  left1. 
Haukyn  is  the  average  man  of  the  world,  honest  in  the  main  and  well- 
meaning,  but  with  small  leaning  towards  a  spiritual  life.     By  trade  he 
is  a  'waferer'  or  baker;  and  he  is  not  a  little  vain  of  his  services  to 
the  community  in  that  line.     But  it  is  soon  apparent  that  all  is  not 
well  with  him ;  and  he,  too,  has  to  learn  his  '  Do-wel '  or  '  Do-bet '  if  not 
'  Do-best.'     The  world  is  no  very  clean  place,  and  Haukyn's  '  moled ' 
garments  afford  plain  proof  of  this.     The  rebuke  of '  Conscience '  marks 
the  awakening  of  his  spiritual  sense,  and  the  picture  of  his  ultimate 
humiliation  and  penitence  is  in  Langland's  best  vein  (B,  xiv,  320  ff.). 

1  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Professor  Manly,  by  ignoring  the  homely  name  of  Haukyn 
and  harping  on  the  scholastic  phrase  vita  activa,  has  obscured  the  dramatic  force  of  this 
section  of  the  Vision. 


12  Was  'Langland'  Author  of  the  C-text  of  Piers  Plowman? 

We  search  for  it  in  vain  in  C.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  author 
could  have  dealt  so  destructively  with  his  own  workmanship — the  fruit, 
be  it  remembered,  not  of  his  unripe  youth,  but  of  his  mature  age. 

Professor  Skeat  finds  in  the  duplication  of  the  confession  scene  (cf. 
v  and  xin,  B)  an  explanation  of  the  treatment  to  which  this  section  of 
the  poem  has  been  subjected.  But  the  recurrence  of  a  confession  scene 
will  hardly  seem  a  blemish  if  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  the  'vision'  of 
which  the  earlier  one  forms  parts  ends  with  Pass.  vii.  Although  the 
cantos  are  numbered  in  succession  for  convenience,  the  poem  of '  Do-wel,' 
to  which  the  episode  of  Haukyn  belongs,  is  a  distinct  work.  In  the  MSS. 
its  first  passus  is  styled  '  passus  octavus  de  visione  et  primus  de  Do-wel! 

The  argument  derived  from  all  the  above  considerations  is  confirmed 
by  certain  obvious  dialectic  peculiarities  of  C.  The  language  of  Lang- 
land  as  seen  in  the  B-text  is  standard  English  of  his  day — the  English 
of  Wi cliff  and  of  Chaucer.  How  then,  except  on  the  theory  of  a  different 
writer  or  editor,  are  we  to  account  for  the  fact  that  in  the  latest  text 
there  are  to  be  found  numerous  provincial  forms  which  are  absent  from 
the  earlier  version  ?  The  most  marked  of  these  are  the  regular  use  of 
ich  for  '  I ' ;  of  heo  or  hue  for  '  she,'  with  a  possessive  form  hure  for  '  her ' ; 
also  of  hus  for  '  his ' ;  and  of  such  plurals  as  clerk-us  for  clerk-es ;  none 
of  which  forms  occur  in  the  B-text  as  edited  by  Professor  Skeat  himself. 
The  course  of  sound-change  is  ever  onward.  He  who  has  learned  to  say 
/  does  not  return  to  his  earlier  ich.  The  difficulty  disappears  on  the 
hypothesis  of  a  later  editor  who  habitually  used  the  provincial  form 
himself  and  lived  among  those  who  were  conversant  with  no  other. 

Such  are  the  chief  grounds  for  questioning  the  authenticity  of  the 
C-text,  and  their  cumulative  weight  seems  to  the  writer  to  be  over- 
whelming. It  may  be  added  that  the  compiler  of  it  would  seem  to  have 
been  a  man  of  somewhat  different  temperament  and  convictions  from 
his  predecessor  or  predecessors.  He  is  more  vehement  in  his  denuncia- 
tion of  the  vices  of  the  priestly  and  monastic  classes,  and,  as  we  have 
seen,  withdraws  '  Langland's '  memorable  testimony  to  the  good  done  by 
the  friars.  Like  him  he  is  full  of  pity  for  the  poor,  but  he  is  sterner 
towards  the  unworthy,  even  counselling  the  rich  not  to  concern  them- 
selves though  such  persons  starve  (C,  xv,  101).  The  author  of  B  is 
more  penetrated  with  the  sense  of  human  weakness,  and  in  one  of  his 
most  winsome  appeals — also  cancelled  in  C — he  pleads  even  for  them 
'  that  nedy  ben  and  naughty.' 

Love  hem  (he  says),  and  lakke  [chide]  hem  not... 

Theigh  [though]  thei  don  yvel-  let  God  worthe.      (B,  vr,  194.) 


THEOPHILUS    D.    HALL  13 

Moreover,  the  compiler  of  C  is  essentially  a  schoolman  and  a  moralist, 
with  little  imaginative  sensibility.  Hence  his  remorseless  handling  of 
'  Langland's '  work  generally,  and  his  obliteration  or  disfigurement  of 
some  of  his  best  lines.  He  must  have  been  an  admirer  of  the  work, 
though  his  treatment  of  it  is  unsympathetic.  No  doubt  he  thought 
his  changes  improvements  and  conducive  to  greater  edification.  The 
seemingly  loose  structure  of  alliterative  verse  lays  it  open  to  facile 
change;  and  no  printing-press  existed  to  confute  the  forger  with  its 
myriad  witnesses.  The  author  of  C  has  here  and  there  a  good  thing  of  his 
own,  but  the  value  of  his  work  as  a  whole  is  antiquarian  rather  than 
literary. 

THEOPHILUS  D.  HALL. 
BOWDON,  CHESHIRE. 


NOTES    ON    CHAUCER 

Prologue,  11.  177—181 : 

He  yaf  nat  of  that  text  a  pulled  hen, 
That  seith  that  hunters  beth  nat  holy  men, 
Ne  that  a  monk,  whan  he  is  recchelees, 
Is  likned  til  a  fish  that  is  waterlees, 
This  is  to  seyn,  a  monk  out  of  his  cloistre. 

It  may  fairly  be  said,  I  think,  that  the  reading  of  the  Harleian  MS. 
'  cloysterles '  for  '  recchelees '  cannot  possibly  be  right.  Chaucer  could 
not  have  written  this  and  then  have  added  so  feeble  an  explanation  of 
what  was  obvious,  '  This  is  to  seyn,  a  monk  out  of  his  cloistre.'  The 
word  'recchelees,'  moreover,  is  quite  appropriate.  It  means  'careless,' 
and  especially  'regardless  of  duty  or  obligation/  whether  of  religion, 
morality  or  gratitude.  ('  Cupido  the  reccheles '  in  Hous  of  Fame,  668, 
is  '  Cupid  who  is  regardless  of  merit  or  service  done.')  To  the  examples 
given  in  the  Oxford  Dictionary  under  'reckless/  may  be  added  these 
from  the  Middle  English  Rule  of  St  Benet  (E.E.T.S.).  In  the  prose 
version  we  have,  with  reference  to  the  discipline  of  the  disobedient, 
']?a  l>at  ere  fraward  and  recles,  lede  f?aim  J>e  straiter'  (p.  6,  1. 14);  and  in 
the  metrical  version,  with  regard  to  the  admission  of  a  nun  to  the  order 
after  a  year's  probation : 

In  hirself  J>en  sal  scho  knaw 
pat  scho  sal  neuer  for  godes  aw 
Fro  )>at  rewle  reklisly  gang. 

So  in  Piers  Plowman,  C,  XIII,  64,  '  a  recheles  caitif '  is  one  who  roams 
the  country  to  escape  the  control  of  his  lord. 

So  Chaucer,  in  writing  '  whan  he  is  recchelees,'  meant  '  when  he  is 
careless  of  his  rule.'  But  as  the  saying  which  he  quotes  is  meant  here 
to  apply  especially  to  a  particular  form  of  carelessness,  namely,  absence 
from  the  monastery  on  worldly  business,  he  adds  the  explanation  '  This 
is  to  seyn,  a  monk  out  of  his  cloistre.'  It  was  possible  of  course  for 
a  monk  to  be  'recchelees'  in  other  ways  than  this,  but  this  was  the 


G.    C.    MACAULAY  15 

most  obvious  and  flagrant  form  of  negligence.  The  alteration  to 
'  cloysterles '  is  exactly  the  kind  of  change  which  might  be  made  by 
a  rather  unintelligent  reviser. 

11.  525  ff. : 

He  waited  after  no  pompe  and  reverence, 
Ne  maked  him  a  spyced  conscience, 
But  Cristes  love,  etc. 

The  word  'spyced'  has  been  quite  rightly  explained  to  mean  'highly 
refined '  or  '  scrupulous/  and  passages  to  illustrate  this  meaning  were 
quoted  by  Todd,  e.g.,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  The  Mad  Lover,  ill,  1 : 

Priestess.     Fy !   no  corruption. 
Cleanthe.     Take  it,  it  is  yours  ; 
Be  not  so  spiced. 

It  is  obvious  that  here  at  least  the  English  expression  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  French  'epices'  in  the  sense  of  presents  made  to  judges,  as 
in  the  poems  of  Coquillart  (ed.  Tarbe,  I,  31),  referred  to  by  Professor 
Skeat,  where  the  judge  says  to  the  suitor, 

Mais  il  faut  payer  les  espices, 
Ce  sont  les  droitz  de  noz  offices, 
Et  puis  on  vous  appointera. 

There  is  no  doubt  about  this  use  of  the  word  in  French,  but  with  all 
deference  to  Professor  Skeat,  I  do  not  think  that  it  ought  to  be  alleged 
in  explanation  of  Chaucer's  expression.  The  phrase  '  spiced  conscience ' 
is  quoted  by  Todd  from  Massinger,  Emperor  of  the  East,  I,  2 : 

Fool  that  I  was  to  offer  such  a  bargain 
To  a  spiced-conscience  chapman  ! 

and  Bashful  Lover,  iv,  2  : 

will  it  please  you  to  put  off 
Your  holy  habit  and  spiced  conscience  ? 

But  the  sense  in  which  Massinger  and  others  used  the  phrase  '  spiced 
conscience,'  i.e.,  '  highly-refined  (or  scrupulous)  morality,'  does  not  suit 
well  with  our  passage  of  Chaucer,  where  it  is  certainly  not  meant  that 
the  parish  priest  was  lax  in  his  morality.  Chaucer's  use  of  the  word 
'  conscience '  requires  attention  here.  In  the  character  of  the  Prioress 
(1.  142)  he  had  written, 

And  for  to  speken  of  hire  conscience, 
She  was  so  charitable  and  so  pitous,  etc.  ; 

and  again  (1.  150), 

And  al  was  conscience  and  tendre  herte, 


16  Notes  on  Chaucer 

where  '  conscience '  seems  clearly  to  mean  '  feeling '  rather  than  either 
'  moral  sense '  or  '  consciousness,'  and  I  am  disposed  to  understand  it  so 
also  in  1.  398,  where  it  is  said  of  the  Shipman, 

Of  nyce  conscience  took  he  no  keep. 

It  is  more  natural,  with  a  view  to  the  balance  of  the  sentences,  to  connect 
this  line  with  what  follows  than  with  what  goes  before,  and  in  that  case 
it  would  mean  that  the  Shipman  had  no  very  delicate  feelings  of 
humanity,  such  as  might  prevent  him  from  throwing  his  prisoners  over- 
board. If  we  suppose  that  in  the  case  of  the  Parson  '  a  spyced  conscience ' 
means  '  highly  refined  (or  fastidious)  feelings,'  it  would  have  reference 
here  not  to  feelings  of  humanity,  but  to  the  sense  of  personal  dignity, 
He  waited  after  no  pompe  and  reverence, 

and  would  naturally  be  connected  with  what  has  already  been  said  of 

him: 

He  was  to  synful  man  nat  despitous, 
Ne  of  his  speche  daungerous  ne  digne 

(where  '  daungerous '  9f  course  means  '  repellent ' :  cp.  Cant.  Tales,  D, 
1090, '  Is  every  knight  of  his  so  dangerous  ? ').  The  passage  would  mean 
then,  '  He  demanded  no  pomp  or  reverence,  nor  did  he  cultivate  highly- 
refined  feelings ;  but  he  taught  the  Gospel  simply,  and  set  an  example 
by  first  following  its  rules  himself  Chaucer  uses  the  phrase  also  in 
The  Wife  of  Bath's  Prologue,  1.  435 : 

Ye  sholde  been  al  pacient  and  meke, 
And  ban  a  swete  spiced  conscience, 
Sith  ye  so  preche  of  Jobes  pacience, 

where  it  seems  to  refer  to  delicacy  of  feeling  as  regards  the  relation  of 
husband  and  wife. 

Knight's  Tale,  1.  297  : 

For  par  amour  I  loved  her  first  er  thow. 

The  meaning  of  this  expression  has  been  rather  obscured  than 
elucidated  by  the  editors.  The  French  '  aimer  par  amour '  meant  '  to  be 
in  love  with,'  and  here  '  to  love  par  amour '  is  opposed  to  that  very 
different  kind  of  love  which  is  associated  with  religious  worship.  Arcite 
is  arguing  that  Palamon's  feeling  had  been  only  '  affeccioun  of  hoolynesse,' 
for  he  admitted  that  he  had  taken  Emilie  for  a  goddess, 

And  myn  is  love,  as  to  a  creature. 

He  admits  that  Palamon  saw  and  loved  her  first,  but  he  maintains  that 
he  was  himself  the  first  to  be  in  love  with  her. 


G.    C.    MACAULAY  17 

Knight's  Tale,  11.  309  f. : 

And  therfore  positif  lawe  and  swich  decree 
Is  broken  al  day  for  love  in  ech  degree. 

It  has  not  been  noted,  so  far  as  I  know,  by  any  editor,  that  the 
expression  '  positif  lawe '  is  here  used  in  the  technical  sense, '  lex  positiva,' 
the  '  positive '  as  opposed  to  the  '  natural '  law.  The  '  positive '  law  is 
that  which  depends  solely  upon  man's  decree,  and  the  term  was  most 
commonly  applied  to  the  rules  laid  down  by  ecclesiastical  authority. 
This  may  be  usefully  illustrated  from  Gower's  utterances  on  the  subject 
in  his  three  principal  works.  In  Vox  Clamantis,  in,  237  ff.,  he  condemns 
the  system  under  which  unnecessary  rules  are  laid  down  by  the  Church, 
in  order  that  money  may  be  obtained  for  dispensations,  with  the  heading, 
'  Hie  loquitur  de  legibus  eorum  positivis,  que  quamvis  ad  cultum  anime 
necessarie  non  sunt,  infinitas  tamen  constituciones  quasi  cotidie  ad 
eorum  lucrum  nobis  graviter  inponunt.'  He  pursues  the  same  theme  in 
Mirour  de  I'Omme,  18469  ff., 

Ne  puet  descendre  en  ma  resoun 
Q'ils  du  propre  imposicioun 
Font  establir  novel  pecche,  etc., 

and  he  proceeds  to  refer  particularly  to  the  question  of  the  forbidden 
degrees  of  marriage,  in  respect  of  which  the  '  positive  law '  of  the  Church 
most  obviously  affected  society : 

Du  loy  papal  est  estably, 
Qe  tu  ne  serras  point  mary 
A  ta  cousine,  etc. 

It  is  with  reference  to  the  same  subject  that  the  '  positive  law '  is  referred 
to  in  Confessio  Amantis,  in,  171  ff.,  where  treating  of  the  incestuous 
love  of  Machaire  and  Canace,  the  author  says  that  they  were  guided  by 
Nature,  who 

techeth  every  lif 
Withoute  lawe  positif, 
Of  which  sche  takth  nomaner  charge, 
Bot  kepth  hire  lawes  al  at  large. 

This  special  application  of  the  term  to  the  ecclesiastical  rules  about 
marriage  gives  us  the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  Chaucer  passage : '  Love 
is  a  greater  law  than  any  other,  and  therefore  positive  law  and  its  decrees 
are  constantly  broken  for  love ' ;  that  is  to  say,  love  pays  no  regard  to 
the  artificial  restrictions  which  human  discipline  endeavours  to  place 
upon  marriage.  It  is  possible  that  '  in  ech  degree '  may  mean  '  in  every 


M.   L.  K.  IV. 


2 


18  Notes  on  Chaucer 

degree  of  kinship,'  but  the  expression  is  also  used  generally,  as  Wife  of 
Bath's  Prologue,  1.  404, 

Atte  ende  I  hadde  the  bettre  in  ech  degree, 
that  is  '  in  every  case.' 

Horn  of  Fame,  II,  421  ff. : 

For  in  this  regioun,  certein, 

Dwelleth  many  a  citezein, 

Of  which  that  speketh  dan  Plato 

This  reference  to  Plato  has  never,  I  think,  been  rightly  explained.  It 
has  been  taken  to  be  a  casual  allusion  to  Plato's  Republic,  suggested  by 
the  word  '  citezein';  but  this  cannot  be  regarded  as  satisfactory.  Chaucer, 
of  course,  was  not  acquainted  with  Plato  at  first  hand,  but  when  he 
wrote  the  Hous  of  Fame  he  was  evidently  fresh  from  reading  Dante,  and 
this  reference  to  Plato  depends  probably  upon  Paradiso,  TV,  22 : 

Ancor  di  dubitar  ti  da  cagione 
Parer  tornarsi  1'anime  alle  stelle, 
Secondo  la  sentenza  di  Platone. 

Dante  refers  to  the  doctrine  of  Plato  in  the  Timceus  to  the  effect  that 
souls  proceed  from  stars  and  return  to  them. 

Legend  of  Good  Women,  11.  285  ff. : 

And  after  hem  com  of  women  swich  a  traas, 
That  sin  that  god  Adam  had  mad  of  erthe, 
The  thridde  part  of  rnankynd  or  the  ferthe, 
Ne  wende  I  nat  by  possibilitee, 
Had  ever  in  this  wyde  world  y-be. 

For  1.  287  the  so-called  A-text,  given  by  the  Cambridge  MS.,  has 
The  thredde  part  of  wemen  ne  the  ferthe. 

The  meaning  here  seems  clear,  but  the  form  of  expression  surely  needs 
some  elucidation.  The  author  means  evidently  that  there  was  such 
a  multitude  that  it  could  hardly  be  believed  that  even  as  many  as  the 
third  or  the  fourth  part  of  it  could  have  existed  in  the  world  since  the 
creation  of  Adam.  But  what  are  we  to  make  of  the  expression  '  of 
mankynd '  or  '  of  wemen '  ?  This,  I  think,  must  be  separated  in  sense 
from  '  The  thridde  part  or  the  ferthe '  and  connected  with  'y-be,'  however 
awkward  the  construction  may  seem :  '  such  a  multitude,  that  not  even 
the  third  or  fourth  part  of  it  could  have  been  born,  as  it  seemed  to  me, 
of  human  kind,'  or  according  to  the  other  text,  '  of  woman  kind.'  The 
sense  would  be  made  a  little  clearer  if  we  punctuated 

The  thridde  part,  of  mankynd,  or  the  ferthe. 


G.    C.    MACAULAY  19 

Legend  of  Good  Women,  11.  298  ff. : 

Hele  and  honour 

To  trouthe  of  womanhede  and  to  this  flour, 
That  berth  our  alder  pris  in  figuringe  ! 

The  last  line  is  explained  to  mean,  '  That  bears  away  the  prize  from  us 
all  in  external  beauty  or  figure.'  This  I  am  sure  is  wrong.  It  means 
rather,  '  That  displays  the  glory  of  us  all  in  a  figure  or  emblem.'  It  is 
not  that  the  daisy  surpasses  all  women  in  external  beauty,  but  it  is  an 
emblem  of  their  spiritual  graces,  of  purity  and  of  truth.  The  expression 
'  in  figuringe  '  is  equivalent  to  '  in  figure,'  as  used,  for  example,  in  Bacon's 
Essays  (quoted  in  the  Oxford  Dictionary) :  '  The  ancient  times  do  set 
forth  in  figure  both  the  incorporation  and  inseparable  conjunction  of 
counsel  with  kings,  and  the  wise  and  politic  use  of  counsel  by  kings : 
the  one  in  that  they  say  Jupiter  did  marry  Metis,'  etc. 

G.  C.  MACAULAY. 
CAMBRIDGE. 


2—2 


ESPRONCEDA. 

I. 

THOUGH  centenary  celebrations  may  sometimes  have  an  air  of  being 
organized  as  much  to  glorify  the  living  as  to  honour  the  dead,  they  have 
their  uses ;  they  serve  to  stimulate  interest  in  great  personalities,  they 
arouse  or  quicken  the  historic  sense,  and  they  occasionally  spur  admirers 
to  researches  which  would  otherwise  not  be  undertaken.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  so  far  as  immediate  positive  additions  to  knowledge  go, 
centenary  celebrations  are  prone  to  be  barren.  Striking  discoveries  are 
rarely  made  at  the  most  dramatic  moment.  Of  the  Calder<5n  bicentenary 
held  in  1881,  nothing  survives  but  an  admirable  course  of  lectures  by 
Sr.  Menendez  y  Pelayo,  and  a  suggestive  treatise  by  Sr.  Rubi<5  y  Lluch. 
We  have  had  to  wait  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  Dr  Perez  Pastor,  the 
happiest  of  investigators — but,  in  these  matters,  fortune  commonly 
favours  the  most  deserving — began  to  do  for  Calder<5n  what  he  had 
done  so  successfully  for  Cervantes.  It  is  now  Espronceda's  turn.  The 
centenary  of  his  birth  occurred  last  March;  it  is  a  little  more  than 
sixty-seven  years  since  he  died.  We  can  see  him  in  his  right  per- 
spective, and  we  are  beginning  to  learn  something  definite  concerning 
the  life  of  the  most  popular  lyric  poet  that  Spain  produced  during  the 
nineteenth  century. 

Our  information  hitherto  has  been  obviously  incomplete ;  it  has  also 
been,  as  Sr.  Cortdn  shows  in  his  interesting  monograph1,  in  many 
respects  erroneous.  All  men,  even  the  best,  have  their  frailties,  and  it 
is  a  wholesome,  pious  sentiment  which  withholds  us  from  peering  too 
curiously  into  the  lives  of  eminent  authors.  But  reticence  may  easily 
be  so  misplaced  as  to  defeat  its  object.  We  can  all  see  now  that  the 
respectable  scruples  which  led  to  the  concealment  of  the  Valladolid 
proceso  did  more  harm  to  Cervantes  than  publication  would  have  done ; 
we  can  all  see  now  that  it  was  a  fatal  error  of  judgment  to  suppress 

1  Espronceda  par  Antonio  Cort6n.     Madrid,  n.d. 


JAMES    FITZM  ACT  RICE-KELLY  21 

Lope  de  Vega's  compromising  correspondence.  The  truth  leaks  out  at 
last,  but  not  till  tittle-tattle  has  done  its  worst.  Espronceda's  case  is, 
naturally,  on  a  very  different  footing.  In  the  interest  of  survivors  it 
needed  handling  with  tact ;  but  the  generation  that  knew  Espronceda 
personally  has  passed  away  with  Valera  and  Cheste,  and,  though  an 
unnecessary  pretence  of  mystery  is  still  kept  up  about  trifling  details, 
something  like  the  real  story  can  now  be  told.  Furtive  tactics  are  once 
more  shown  to  be  the  worst  in  the  world.  The  legendary  Espronceda 
was  a  profligate,  sinister  figure,  the  incarnation  of  rebellion  against  the 
established  order  in  politics  and  morals.  According  to  the  new  version, 
he  was  of  unimpeachable  orthodoxy,  and,  after  sowing  his  wild  oats,  he 
was  on  the  point  of  settling  down  to  a  life  of  humdrum  respectability 
when  death  took  him  prematurely.  The  facts  may  be  left  to  tell  their 
own  tale1. 

We  had  hitherto  been  led  to  suppose  that  Espronceda  was  the  only 
child  of  his  parents,  and  that  he  was  born  at  Almendralejo  de  los  Barros 
on  the  line  of  march  during  the  Peninsular  War  in  1809  or  1810.  This 
is  a  tissue  of  mistakes.  Espronceda  had  a  brother2  and  a  sister3  (both 
older  than  himself)  who  died  young.  He  was  born  on  March  25,  1808 
- — before  the  Peninsular  War  began, — and,  according  to  local  tradition, 
his  birth  took  place  in  a  shepherd's  hut  at  a  spot  called  Pajares  de  la 
Vega  near  Villafranca  de  los  Barros4.  However  that  may  be,  he  was 
baptized  the  same  day  in  the  church  of  Our  Lady  at  Almendralejo, 
received  the  names  of  Jose  Ignacio  Javier  Oriol  Encarnacidn,  and  is 
described  in  the  certificate  as  the  legitimate  son  of  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Juan  Espronceda  (of  the  Bourbon  cavalry  regiment)  and  his  wife  Dona 
Maria  del  Carmen  Delgado  y  Lara.  He  is  next  heard  of  in  July,  1820, 
when  his  father  took  steps  to  have  him  admitted  to  the  artillery  school 
at  Segovia.  The  boy  entered  as  a  cadet  in  June,  1821,  but  was  shortly 
afterwards  removed  to  the  Colegio  de  San  Mateo  in  Madrid  when 

1  For  biographical  information,  the  student  should  consult,  in  addition  to  Sr.  Gorton's 
monograph,  two  articles  by  Sr.  D.  Jose  Cascales  y  Mnfioz  in  La  Espana  Moderna  (May  and 
June,  1908),  and  Sr.  E.  Kodriquez  Solis,  Espronceda:    su  tiempo,  su  vida,  y  sus  obras 
(Madrid,  1883). 

2  Francisco  Javier  Diego,  born  at  Ecus  on  May  13,  1805. 

3  Maria  del  Carmen  Agustina  Tadea  Teresa  Javiera  Eulalia,  born  at  Barcelona  on 
February  12,  1807,  and  died  on  March  24,  1807. 

4  Colonel  Juan  Espronceda's  regiment  was  stationed  at  Villafranca  de  los  Barros.    He 
and  his  wife  resided  at  8,  Plaza  Vieja  (now  Plaza  de  Fernando  Ceballos) ;  the  disturbances 
following  upon  the  mutiny  at  Aranjuez  and  the  fall   of  Godoy  caused  them  to  leave 
hurriedly  for  Badajoz,   and  Jos6  Espronceda  was  born   soon  after  the  journey  began. 
This  is  the  version  given  by  Sr.  Cascales  y  Munoz ;  but,  according  to  Sr.  Gorton  (p.  17), 
Espronceda   was   born   at  Almendralejo   de  los  Barros  where,  unquestionably,  he  was 
baptized. 


22  Espronceda 

Alberto  Lista  and  Jose  Gdmez  Hermosilla  were  among  his  masters; 
from  the  outset  he  was  a  favourite  with  Lista  whose  affection  for  him 
never  wavered,  but  he  had  no  taste  for  plodding,  and  the  official  school- 
reports  speak  of  him  as  an  exceedingly  clever,  idle,  lovable  lad.  He  soon 
began  to  dabble  in  literature  and  politics.  A  member  of  El  Mirto, 
a  literary  society  formed  by  the  boys  of  San  Mateo,  he  joined  Los 
Numantinos,  a  political  club  founded  at  the  suggestion  of  a  school-fellow 
slightly  his  senior,  Patricio  de  la  Escosura.  It  is  amusing  to  find  in  the 
list  of  members — there  were  but  twelve — the  names  of  Ventura  de  la 
Vega,  Roca  de  Togores,  and  Plazuela;  these  three  exasperated  young 
revolutionists  were  destined  to  become  pillars  of  society:  Vega  was 
appointed  secretary  to  Isabel  II,  Roca  de  Togores  is  more  easily 
recognizable  as  the  Marques  de  Molins1,  and  Plazuela — better  known 
as  the  Conde  de  Cheste — died,  almost  a  centenarian,  as  the  Director  of 
the  Spanish  Academy. 

Meanwhile  the  Numantinos,  the  eldest  of  whom  was  barely  twenty, 
met  in  unfrequented  fields,  or  in  obscure  holes  and  corners,  to  plot  for 
the  cause  of  liberty.  The  juvenile  conspirators  took  themselves  very 
seriously,  and  it  is  fair  to  say  that  they  did  more  than  talk.  Espronceda 
soon  had  an  opportunity  of  showing  that  he  was  in  earnest,  and  in  1 822 
he  was  under  fire  for  the  first  time.  A  boy  of  fourteen,  he  enlisted  in 
the  National  Militia,  helped  to  put  down  an  absolutist  rising  at  Madrid, 
and  celebrated  the  triumph  of  constitutional  liberty  in  a  poem  Al  Siete 
de  Julio  which  was  warmly  praised  by  Lista.  But  constitutional  liberty 
did  not  triumph  for  long.  The  Due  d'Angouleme  and  his  '  hundred 
thousand  sons  of  St  Louis'  crushed  the  Liberals  in  1823,  and  on 
November  7  Rafael  Riego,  the  figure-head  of  the  revolution,  was 
executed  in  the  Plaza  de  la  Cebada  at  Madrid.  The  young  Numantinos 
were  present  in  the  crowd,  held  a  meeting  afterwards,  and  swore  to 
avenge  their  chief — 'beginning  with  the  highest.'  This  amounted  to 
passing  sentence  of  death  on  Ferdinand  VII.  Unfortunately  for  them- 
selves the  youthful  enthusiasts  made  their  vows  in  writing.  The  melo- 
dramatic document  fell  into  the  wrong  hands,  and  was  used  against 
them.  Espronceda  was  arrested  with  some  of  his  friends,  and  was 
sentenced  to  five  years'  confinement  in  the  Franciscan  monastery  at 
Guadalajara  where  his  father  was  then  stationed.  There  was  evidently 
no  intention  of  treating  him  harshly,  and  he  was  speedily  released.  He 
returned,  bringing  his  sheaves  with  him,  to  Madrid,  where  Lista  had 

1  His  conversion  seems  to  have  been  complete  ;  he  was  prominent  in  contriving  the  fall 
of  Olozaga  in  1843. 


JAMES    FITZMAURICE-KELLY  23 

opened  a  private  school  in  the  Calle  de  Valverde  to  supply  the  place  of 
the  Colegio  de  San  Mateo  which  an  unsympathetic  Government  had 
closed  on  the  arrest  of  the  Numantinos.  Espronceda's  sheaves  consisted 
of  the  manuscript  of  El  Pelayo,  an  unfinished  epic,  which  was  dutifully 
admired  by  the  master  who  had  the  good  sense  to  see  that  his  turbulent 
pupil  was  a  much  truer  poet  than  he  himself  was. 

But,  though  Lista  contributed  forty-seven  supplementary  stanzas, 
Espronceda  never  found  time  to  complete  El  Pelayo.  He  was  not  long 
in  discovering  that  epics  were  not  his  calling.  He  is  said  to  have  met 
with  Andre  Chenier's  poems  shortly  after  his  return  from  Guadalajara, 
and  to  have  begun  his  evolution  from  classicism  to  romanticism.  On 
the  closing  of  Lista's  school  in  1826,  Espronceda  found  it  convenient 
to  leave  Madrid,  made  for  Gibraltar,  and  thence  sailed  for  Lisbon.  He 
has  told  us  how  he  was  put  in  quarantine,  how  the  sanitary  authorities 
pestered  him  for  their  fee,  how  he  offered  them  the  only  duro  which 
he  possessed,  and  how  he  threw  the  two  pesetas  which  he  received  as 
change  '  into  the  Tagus,  as  I  did  not  wish  to  enter  so  great  a  capital 
with  so  little  money1.'  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  Espronceda's 
parents  kept  him  well  supplied  with  cash,  but  his  story  may  be  true 
enough,  and  at  all  events  his  beau  geste  is  quite  in  the  high  romantic 
manner.  He  was  no  more  at  peace  in  Lisbon  than  in  Madrid.  Portugal 
was  in  a  state  of  civil  war,  and  the  Spanish  refugees  were  regarded  with 
suspicion.  Possibly  Espronceda,  not  content  with  literature,  became 
entangled  in  local  politics  ;  at  any  rate,  he  was  arrested,  and  imprisoned 
in  the  Castle  of  St  George.  It  was  a  fateful  experience,  for  here  he 
first  met  the  celebrated  Teresa  whose  name  is  so  tragically  associated 
with  his  life,  but  to  whom  he  owes  his  finest  inspiration : 

Aun  parece,  Teresa,  que  te  veo 
Aerea  como  dorada  mariposa, 
Ensueiio  delicioso  del  deseo, 
Sobre  tallo  gentil  temprana  rosa, 
Del  amor  venturoso  devaneo, 
Angelica,  purfsirua  y  dichosa, 
Y  oigo  tu  voz  dulcfsirna,  y  respiro 
Tu  aliento  perfumado  en  tu  suspiro2. 

1  '  En  fin,  llegamos  a  Lisboa,  que  yo  crei  que  no  llegabamos  nunca.  Hicimos  cuarentena, 
que  fue  tambien  divertida ;  visit6uos  la  sanidad,  y  nos  pidieron  no  se  que  dinero.     Yo 
saque  un  duro,  linico  'que  tenia,  y  me  devolvieron  dos  pesetas,  que  arroje  al  rio  Tajo, 
porque  no  querria  entrar  en  tan  gran  capital  con  tan  poco  dinero.' 

2  The  quotations  throughout  are  from  the  Obras  poeticas  y  escritos  en  prosa.    Colecci(5n 
completa   enriquecida  con  varias  producciones   ineditas   encontradas  entre   los   papeles 
aut6grafos  del  autor,  ordenada  por  Don  Patricio  de  la  Escosura  Academico  de  la  Espanola  ; 
publicala  Dofia  Blanca  Espronceda  de  Escosura,  hija  unica  y  heredera  del  insigne  poeta. 
Madrid  :    Eduardo  Mengibar,  1884.     The  second  volume  has  not  appeared.     It  is  dis- 
creditable that  no  complete  edition  of  Espronceda's  works  is  available. 


24  Espronceda 

At  this  time  Teresa  was  fifteen,  daughter  of  a  hectoring  Andalusian 
colonel  whom  we  know  only  as  Don  Epifanio  M.  The  idyll  was  cut 
short  by  the  Portuguese  Government;  Teresa  and  Don  Epifanio  M. 
were  hurriedly  shipped  off  to  England,  and  Espronceda  was  unable  to 
follow  them  till  a  year  or  two  later.  He  then  found  that  Teresa  had 
been  forced  into  a  marriage  with  a  well-to-do  Spanish  merchant,  estab- 
lished in  London,  whose  identity  is  disguised  under  the  initials  G.  B.1 
Espronceda  was  twenty,  and  Teresa  was  seventeen ;  their  heads  were 
aflame  with  romantic  nonsense,  they  were  thrown  in  each  other's 
company  once  more,  and  things  fell  out  as  might  be  expected.  Teresa 
left  her  husband  and  child,  disguised  herself  in  boy's  clothes,  and  eloped 
with  Espronceda  to  Plymouth ;  there  the  couple  embarked  for  Cherbourg, 
and  took  up  their  residence  at  Paris.  Among  the  colony  of  Spanish 
refugees  in  London,  Espronceda  had  attracted  no  notice ;  absorbed  by 
his  passion,  he  lived  in  obscurity.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  written 
in  either  of  the  journals  issued  by  the  refugees, — El  Moino  and  Ocios, — 
and  it  has  been  remarked  with  some  acerbity  that  his  name  is  not  even 
mentioned  by  Alcala  Galiano  in  the  Recuerdos  de  un  anciano.  There  is 
no  reason  why  it  should  be,  for  Espronceda  had  as  yet  done  nothing  to 
distinguish  him  from  the  crowd  of  exiles  who  preferred  to  run  the  risk  of 
starvation  in  Somers  Town  rather  than  be  within  reach  of  Ferdinand  VII 
and  his  camarilla.  Two  of  Espronceda's  poems  belong  to  this  period : 
the  Serenata  is  dated  'Londres,  1828,'  and  the  elegy  A  lapatria  is  dated 
'Londres,  1829.'  The  Serenata  has  touches  of  conventional  prettiness 
likely  enough  to  appeal  to  a  young  girl  like  Teresa  (who  appears  as 
Elisa),  and  there  is  a  vibrating  note  of  patriotic  anguish  in  the  elegy. 
But  in  neither  of  these  poerns  do  we  find  the  authentic  Espronceda. 
He  had  not  yet  found  himself:  he  was  to  do  so  in  Paris. 

There  literature  and  politics  were  in  a  ferment  of  revolution.  The 
publication  of  the  Orientates  (1829),  and  the  performance  of  Hernani  at 
the  Theatre  Fran9ais  (February  25, 1830),  filled  the  literary  conservatives 
with  dismay.  Espronceda  may  not  have  known  Victor  Hugo,  Musset 
and  Gautier  personally,  but  it  is  clear  that  he  read  them  as  assiduously 
as  he  had  read  Byron  in  England,  and  during  his  stay  in  Paris  he  must 
often  have  met  with  wild  Bohemians  like  Petrus  Borel  (Le  Lycanthrope, 
as  he  chose  to  call  himself),  the  most  amazing  figure  in  the  amazing 

1  The  practice  of  referring  by  their  Christian  names,  or  by  initials,  to  the  tragic 
comedians  in  this  drama,  is  not  solely  due,  as  might  be  imagined,  to  a  superfine  dis- 
cretion. Sr.  Cort6n  hints  broadly  (p.  166)  that  Teresa's  surname  would  have  been  given 
to  the  world  long  ago,  if  it  had  happened  to  be  pleasing. 


JAMES    FITZMAURICE-KELLY  25 

group  of  Bousingots,  who  curdled  the  blood  of  the  middle-classes  with 
their  romantic  extravagances.  Baffled  by  a  Bourbon  in  Spain,  Espron- 
ceda  helped  to  dethrone  a  Bourbon  in  France,  and  fought  at  the 
barricades  in  July,  1830.  For  some  time  Ferdinand  VII  refused  to 
recognize  the  new  French  monarchy;  Louis-Philippe  retaliated  by 
encouraging  the  emigrados  who  were  flocking  to  the  frontier,  preparing 
to  provoke  a  series  of  local  insurrections  against  absolutism.  This  was 
the  kind  of  argument  that  Ferdinand  could  understand,  and  he  gave 
way  as  usual  when  his  personal  interests  were  threatened.  Deprived  of 
French  support,  the  expeditions  marched  to  disaster,  and  Espronceda 
marched  with  them.  He  served  under  Colonel  Joaquin  de  Pablo — 
otherwise  Chapalangarra — who  advanced  into  Spain  with  a  band  of  one 
or  two  hundred  volunteers.  Chapalangarra  was  killed  in  the  first 
encounter,  and,  after  a  desperate  struggle  against  superior  numbers, 
his  force  was  compelled  to  retreat.  Espronceda,  who  had  shown  great 
gallantry  in  the  engagement,  commemorated  his  leader's  fall  in  a  copy 
of  impressive  verses : 

Llorad,  virgenes  tristes  de  Iberia, 
Nuestros  heroes  en  funebre  lloro  ; 
Dad  al  viento  las  trenzas  de  oro 
Y  los  cantos  de  muerte  entonad  : 

Y  vosotros ;  oh  nobles  guerreros, 
De  la  patria  sosten  y  esperanza  ! 
Abrasados  en  sed  de  venganza, 
Odio  eteruo  al  tirano  jurad. 

Chapalangarra's  defeat  took  place  in  October ;  towards  the  close  of  the 
year,  Jose  Maria  Torrijos  left  Gibraltar  and  advanced  upon  Malaga  in 
the  belief  that  he  would  be  joined  by  the  regulars.  The  information 
was  misleading;  Torrijos  and  his  handful  of  supporters  were  trapped; 
they  were  induced  to  surrender,  and  were  then  murdered.  The  massacre 
was  branded  in  an  indignant  sonnet  by  Espronceda  who,  at  about  this 
period,  volunteered  to  join  an  expedition  to  Russian  Poland  where  an 
insurrection  was  in  progress.  Like  Ferdinand  VII,  Nicholas  I  had 
refused  to  recognize  Louis-Philippe;  the  French  Government  pursued 
the  same  policy  towards  Russia  as  towards  Spain,  and,  when  he  saw 
expeditions  being  fitted  out  against  him  with  the  connivance  of  the 
French  Foreign  Office,  Nicholas  surrendered  as  meekly  as  Ferdinand. 
No  more  was  heard  of  '  divine  right '  as  against  '  revolutionary  prin- 
ciples ' ;  Louis-Philippe  was  duly  recognized  by  the  Tsar,  the  service  was 
repaid,  and  the  volunteers  for  Poland  were  arrested. 

The  year  1830  was  eventful  and  discouraging  for  Espronceda.     He 
had  failed  in  his  effort  to  raise  Spain ;  he  had  failed  in  his  attempt  to 


26  Espronceda 

follow  the  example  which  was  always  before  his  eyes,  and  to  do  for 
Poland  what  Byron  had  done  for  Greece.  It  is  reported  that  envoys 
from  London  visited  Teresa,  and  sought  to  induce  her  to  return  to  her 
child  and  the  mysterious  G.  B. ;  if  so,  the  overture  was  rejected.  The 
pair  removed  to  Passy1,  where  they  lived  in  tranquil  obscurity  till  the 
death  of  Ferdinand  VII  in  1833,  and  the  subsequent  amnesty,  opened 
Spain  to  them  once  more.  Espronceda  had  left  Spain  as  a  '  classic ' ;  he 
returned  a  full-fledged  'romantic,'  with  all  the  inconsistencies  and 
extravagances  of  the  school.  Exile  had  been  less  hard  for  him  than  for 
most  of  his  comrades,  for  his  father  and  mother  seem  to  have  supplied 
him  with  sufficient  means.  The  prodigal  found  friends  at  court  when 
he  returned.  His  father  was  now  a  brigadier,  his  uncle — the  future 
Patriarch  of  the  Indies — was  Bishop  of  C6rdoba,  and  through  their 
influence  he  was  given  a  commission  in  the  Guardia  de  Corps2.  But  he 
was  still  untamed,  and  could  not  in  a  moment  forget  his  revolutionary 
theories,  nor  his  obligation  to  shock  the  Philistines  by  his  eccentricities. 
He  attended  a  political  banquet,  delighted  the  guests  by  reading  a  copy 
of  decimas  condemning  the  Government  which  had  appointed  him3,  was 
cashiered,  and  sent  into  exile  at  Cuellar.  His  expulsion  must  have 
been  painful  to  his  father  (who  died  the  year  following),  but  it  was  well- 
deserved,  and  need  not  be  regretted.  Literature  gained  much  more 
than  the  army  lost. 

Yet  the  first  result  of  Espronceda's  enforced  seclusion  was  not  happy. 
At  this  distance,  when  our  own  enthusiasms  have  cooled,  it  is  difficult 
to  imagine  how  great  the  influence  of  Sir  Walter  Scott  was  on  the 
continent ;  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  believing  that 
what  we  now  think  to  be  his  inferior  novels  were  precisely  those  which 
were  most  admired  abroad.  It  takes  time  to  sift  the  chaff  from  the 
grain,  and  a  generation  which  was  capable  of  ranking  Lalla  Rookh 
above  Adonais  was  naturally  incapable  of  discriminating  between  the 
relative  merits  of  Old  Mortality  and  Ivanhoe.  We  cannot  expect 
foreigners  to  be  more  infallible  in  these  matters  than  ourselves. 
Espronceda  had  been  brought  up  in  the  straitest  sect  of  admirers. 
His  old  master  Lista  was  enthusiastic  for  '  Gualtero  Escoto.'  Trueba 

1  Espronceda  would  seem,  however,  to  have  visited  London  again.     At  least,  the  poem 
A  Matilde  (on  pp.  226-8  of  the  Obras  poeticas  y  escritos  en  prosa)  is  dated  '  Londres,  1832.' 

2  But  compare  the  note  appended  to  the  Octavo  real  on  p.  226  of  the  Obras  poeticas  y 
escritos  en  prosa.    Here  Espronceda  is  described  as  belonging  to  the  Guardia  on  October 
10,  1831.     This  seems  to  be  a  misprint. 

3  So  far  as  appears,  these  verses  have  not  been  preserved ;  yet  it  might  be  thought 
that  they  would  be  embodied  in  the  official  report  of  the  court-martial.     Nor  have  I  seen 
the  juvenile  poem  Al  Siete  de  Julio  which  Lista  is  said  to  have  praised,  and  which  helped 
Espronceda  to  ingratiate  himself  at  Lisbon  with  Colonel  Epifanio  M. 


JAMES    FITZMAU RICE-KELLY  27 

y  Cosio,  one  of  the  ernigrados,  had  produced  two  historical  novels 
written  in  English — Gomez  Arias  (1828)  and  The  Castilians  (1829) — 
while  Espronceda  was  in  London,  and  about  the  time  that  Espronceda 
went  to  Passy  Notre-Dame  de  Paris  appeared  (1831).  In  1831  also 
Trueba  y  Cosio's  Gomez  Arias  had  been  translated  into  Spanish  by 
Mariano  Torrente,  and  other  imitators  of  Scott  had  come  forward  in 
different  parts  of  Spain.  Among  these  were  two  intimate  friends  of 
Espronceda :  in  1833  Jose  Garcia  de  Villalta  had  published  El  golpe  en 
vago1,  and  Escosura  had  published  El  Conde  de  Candespina.  Espronceda 
followed  the  fashion;  in  1834  he  brought  out  Sancho  Saldana  6  El 
Castellano  de  Cuellar:  novela  historica  original  del  siglo  XIII — a 
romance  in  six  volumes2  dedicated  to  his  mother.  It  is  readable 
inasmuch  as  it  deals  with  a  picturesque  historical  period,  and  it  contains 
a  few  brilliant  descriptive  passages;  but  it  is  a  literary  exercise,  not 
specially  characteristic  of  the  author. 

I  have  assumed  that  Espronceda  was  attached  to  the  Guardia  de 
Corps  immediately  on  his  return  to  Madrid  in  the  autumn  of  1833,  and 
that  he  was  cashiered  and  sent  to  Cuellar  within  a  very  short  time  of 
joining  his  regiment;  but  it  is  right  to  say  that  this  is  mere  conjecture. 
We  are  almost  forced  to  assign  his  exile  to  this  period  by  the  statements 
of  his  biographers  who  allege  that  he  helped  to  found  El  Siglo,  a  liberal 
newspaper  of  which  the  first  number  appeared  on  January  21,  18343. 
If  he  really  took  any  active  part  in  launching  El  Siglo,  it  is  plain  that 
his  stay  at  Cuellar  must  have  been  very  short.  But,  assuming  that  he 
was  still  at  Cuellar  when  El  Siglo  first  appeared,  it  seems  highly 
probable  that  he  was  free  again  before  April  26,  1834,  on  which  date 
the  managers  of  the  Teatro  de  la  Cruz  produced  Ni  el  tio  ni  el  sobrino, 
a  piece  which  he  wrote  in  collaboration  with  Antonio  Ros  de  Olano, 

1  Sr.  Corton  states  (p.  221)  that  Garcia  de  Villalta,  like  Trueba  y  Cosio,  wrote  novels 
iu  English ;  they  do  not  appear  under  his  name  in  the  catalogue  of  the  British  Museum 
Library,  but  may  have  been  published  anonymously.     Garcia  de  Villalta  is  known  also  as 
the  author  of  an  excellent  translation  of  Macbeth  which  was  hooted  off  the  stage  at  the 
Teatro  del  Principe  in  1838  ;  see  Enrique  Piiieyro,  El  Romanticismo  en  Espaha  (Paris, 
n.d.),  pp.  170-1. 

2  Are  there  two  editions  of  Sancho  Saldana,  issued  in  1834  ?    Sr.  Corton  describes  (p.  219) 
a  mysterious  edition  published  by  Kepulles  as  being  in  the  form  of  an  octavo  volume  '  de 
muy  escasas  hojas,'  and  again  (p.  242)  as  '  un  tomo  en  8°,  flaco  y  raquitico.'     The  only 
edition  which  I  have  §een  was  published  at  '  Madrid  :  Imprenta  de  Repulles.     Aiio  de 
1834.'     The  arrangement  is  as  follows:  vol.  i,  pp.  1 — 178,  vol.  n,  pp.  1—188,  vol.  in, 
pp.  1—205,  vol.  iv,  pp.  1—186,  vol.  v,  pp.  1 — 181,  vol.  vi,  pp.  1 — 212. 

3  Sr.  Corton  (p.  219)  states  that  Espronceda  was  banished  to  Cuellar  at  the  beginning 
of  1834,  and  he  may  possibly  be  right.    But,  in  that  case,  Espronceda  can  scarcely  have  had 
any  great  share  in  founding  El  Siglo.     No  doubt  discipline  in  the  Spanish  army  was  lax  at 
this  time ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  think  that  any  ensign  on  the  active  list  would  have  been 
allowed  to  found  a  journal  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  overthrowing  the  Government  under 
which  he  served. 


28  Espronceda 

like  himself  a  founder  of  El  Siglo.  Ni  el  tio  ni  el  sobrino  attracted 
little  notice :  El  Siglo  attracted  too  much  notice  for  Espronceda's  con- 
venience. He  was  arrested  on  July  25  and,  after  a  week  in  jail,  was 
ordered  to  Badajoz,  and  told  not  to  return  to  Madrid.  In  a  letter  dated 
from  the  City  Prison  on  August  7,  and  published  in  the  newspapers,  he 
protested  against  not  being  sent  for  trial,  and  renewed  his  protest  in  a 
letter  to  the  Queen-regent  on  August  12.  From  these  circumstances 
it  would  appear  that  he  had  refused  to  leave  the  Madrid  jail,  and  that 
the  Government  shrank  from  removing  him  to  Badajoz  by  force.  His 
letter  to  the  Queen-regent  proved  effectual1;  he  was  released,  and  flung 
himself  into  the  political  fray  again. 

He  was  in  constant  and  aggressive  opposition.  In  1835  he  joined 
the  National  Militia,  and  on  August  15  took  part  with  them  in  their 
armed  demonstration  against  Toreno's  Cabinet.  In  1836  he  published 
a  pamphlet  against  the  much  more  advanced  Government  of  Mendizabal; 
on  August  3  he  again  '  demonstrated '  in  the  streets  with  the  National 
Militia  against  Mendizabal's  successor  Istiiriz,  and  narrowly  escaped 
from  the  police  who  were  in  search  of  him.  He  found  shelter  in  the 
unlikeliest  spot — in  the  house  of  a  police  commissary — and  there  is  said 
to  have  written  El  Mendigo  and  El  Verdugo,  which  were  duly  published 
in  the  Revista  Espanola.  Coming  out  of  his  hiding-place,  he  carried  on 
his  political  campaign  in  the  columns  of  El  Espanol,  and  travelled 
through  Andalusia,  organizing  supporters  at  Granada,  Seville  and  Cadiz. 
He  collaborated  with  Eugenio  Moreno  L(5pez  in  a  prose  play  entitled 
Amor  venga  sus  agravios:  the  piece,  ascribed  on  the  programme  to 
D.  Luis  Senra  y  Palomares,  was  produced  without  much  success  at  the 
Teatro  del  Principe  on  September  28,  1838.  In  1839  Espronceda 
visited  Granada  once  more,  and  there  gave  the  local  literary  society  the 
primeur  of  part  of  his  Estudiante  del  Salamanca. 

Not  content  with  his  notoriety  as  a  poet  and  political  agitator,  he 
had  adopted  the  pose  of  a  dandy,  and  his  adventures  led  to  scenes  and 
quarrels  with  Teresa.  The  picturesque  details  which  are  given  of  these 
outbursts  are  uncorroborated,  and  are  probably  false.  It  seems,  however, 
to  be  fairly  certain  that  Teresa  fled  to  Valladolid  in  a  fury  of  jealousy, 
and  was  forcibly  brought  back  by  Espronceda;  a  complete  rupture 

1  Espronceda's  manifest  reluctance  to  leave  Madrid,  and  his  personal  appeal  to  the 
Queen-regent — an  action  very  unlike  him — may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  his  daughter 
Blanca  was  born  during  the  course  of  1834.  It  may  be  convenient  to  mention  at  this 
point  that,  after  Espronceda's  death,  Blanca  was  adopted  (or,  at  least,  educated)  by  her 
father's  friend,  the  Conde  de  las  Navas.  She  married  Narciso  de  la  Escosura,  younger 
brother  of  Patricio  de  la  Escosura,  a  leading  spirit  among  the  Numantinos. 


JAMES    FITZMAURICE-KELLY  29 

followed1,  and  no  more  is  heard  of  Teresa  till  her  premature  death  on 
September  18,  1839.  This  tragic  incident  made  no  apparent  difference 
in  the  poet's  mode  of  life.  In  1840  his  mother  died.  His  domestic 
troubles  would  seem  to  have  invigorated  his  energies,  instead  of  checking 
them.  He  wrote  his  patriotic  poem  Al  Dos  de  Mayo,  commemorating 
the  popular  movement  of  1808  against  the  French,  contrasting  past  and 
present,  and  branding  the  subserviency  of  contemporary  place-hunters 
to  Louis-Philippe.  He  made  a  bid  for  fame  as  an  orator  by  delivering 
a  speech  at  the  bar  in  defence  of  Patricio  Olivarria,  who  was  prosecuted 
for  mildly  advocating  republican  theories  in  El  Huracdn.  In  this  same 
year,  1840,  Espronceda  published  his  Poesias2,  a  slim  volume  which 
established  his  reputation,  and  was  reprinted  at  Paris  within  a  short 
time  of  its  appearance  at  Madrid3.  The  loyal  Lista  came  forward  to  lead 
the  chorus  of  applause,  and,  though  he  could  see  nothing  to  praise  in 
El  Reo  de  Muerte  nor  (strangely  enough)  in  El  Verdugo,  was  enthusiastic 
in  his  appreciation  of  the  book  as  a  whole.  He  was  perhaps  rashly 
enthusiastic  when,  in  speaking  of  Elvira,  he  invited  a  comparison 
between  Espronceda  and  Milton. 

His  literary  success  seems  to  have  encouraged  and  steadied  Espron- 
ceda, and  the  political  situation  favoured  his  ambition.  The  first  canto 
of  El  Diablo  Mundo  was  issued  early  in  October,  1840 4;  and,  shortly 
afterwards,  Espartero  succeeded  the  Queen-mother  as  Regent.  Espron- 

1  We  are  not  told  when  this  rupture  occurred,  but  1836  seems  a  probable  date. 

2  Sr.  Gorton  states  (p.  29)  that  not  a  single  copy  of  this  first  edition  is  now  in  existence. 
This  is,  I  think,  a  misapprehension.     There  is  a  copy  in  the  British  Museum  with  the 
press-mark  1464.  h.  13.     Poesias  de  D.  Jose  de  Espronceda.     Madrid.     En  la  Imprenta  de 
Yenes,  Calle  de  Segovia,  Num.  6,  1840.     A  private  collector  in  this  country  has  another 

3  Poesias  de  D.  Jos6  de  Espronceda.     Paris,  Imprimerie  de  H.  Fournier,  1840.     This 
appears  to  be  an  exact  reprint  of  the  Madrid  issue,  not  very  intelligently  executed.    At 
the  end  of  the  princeps  there  is  the  following  Advertencia  :    '  Al  poner  en  limpio  los 
borradores  se  omitieron  involuntariamente  las  cuatro  octavas  siguientes  de  Fragmento  1° 
del  poema  Pelayo,  que  deben  leerse  a  continuacidn  de  la  II,  en  la  pagina  14.'      Then 
follow  the  stanzas  numbered  in,  iv,  v  and  vi  in  the  modern  editions  : 

(in)     Al  blando  son  de  la  armoniosa  lira... 

(iv)     Toledo,  que  de  magicos  jardines... 

(v)     Alii  con  ojos  languidos  respira... 

(vi)    El  ruido  crece  del  festin  en  tanto... 

This  Advertencia  and  the  four  stanzas  are  reproduced  in  the  Paris  reprint.  Unfortunately 
in  the  Paris  edition  p.  14  is  a  blank,  and  El  Pelayo  begins  on  p.  17.  It  may  be  worth 
remarking  that  the  title  is  generally  given  (though  not  by  Sr.  Gorton)  as  Poesias  vanas  : 
the  word  varias  does  not  occur  on  the  title-page  of  the  1840  editions.  The  Madrid 
princeps  was  advertised'  in  May,  1840 ;  but  the  book  was  probably  ready  considerably 
before  this  date,  for  the  Prologo  by  Jose  Garcia  de  Villalta  is  dated  June,  1839. 

4  El  Diablo  Mundo  appears  to  have  been  issued  by  Boix  in  parts  published  at  irregular 
intervals.     I  have  not  seen  it  in  this  form  :  the  earliest  issue  known  to  me  is  the  two 
volume  edition  (containing  six  cantos)  brought  out  by  Boix  in  1841.     Modern  reprints 
include  fragments  of  what  was  to  be  the  seventh  canto.      These  verses  were  «>citea— 
wholly  or  in  part— at  Espronceda's  funeral  by  the  celebrated  actor  Julian  Eomea,  himse 
skilful  versifier. 


30  Espronceda 

ceda's  friends  were  now  in  power;  he  was  nominated  Secretary  of 
Legation  at  The  Hague,  and  left  to  take  up  the  appointment  towards 
the  end  of  1841.  His  absence  was  short.  The  Government  needed 
parliamentary  supporters,  and — by  methods  too  familiar  to  students  of 
Spanish  politics — Espronceda  became  deputy  for  the  province  of  Almeria. 
He  did  not  resign  his  post  at  The  Hague,  but  came  back  to  Madrid,  and 
took  the  oath  on  March  1,  1842.  His  speech  on  behalf  of  Olivarria  is 
said  to  have  been  impressive,  and  the  ministry  may  well  have  hoped  to 
find  in  him  a  valuable  recruit ;  but,  if  he  had  the  talent  of  oral  eloquence, 
he  was  careful  to  hide  it.  Conscious  of  his  physical  disadvantages,  he 
doubtless  perceived  that  he  could  not  compete  with  such  brilliant 
rhetoricians  on  his  own  side  as  Joaquin  Maria  Lopez  and  Salustiano  de 
Olozaga.  He  made  no  attempt  to  rival  them ;  yet  he  showed  none  of 
the  diffidence  which  is  usually  thought  to  be  becoming  in  a  new  member. 
Espronceda,  who  was  officially  described  as  a  '  moderate  progressist,' 
knew  how  electioneering  was  conducted  in  Spain ;  his  denunciations  of 
the  system  leave  no  doubt  on  this  head,  and  the  system  has  never  varied, 
whatever  party  may  have  been  in  power.  He  was,  therefore,  well  aware 
that  he  owed  his  seat  to  official  pressure,  not  to  the  electors  of  Almeria, 
who,  like  the  electors  in  most  other  Spanish  constituencies,  were  merely 
so  many  '  honorary  voters.'  However,  he  appears  to  have  taken  the 
position  seriously,  was  assiduous  in  attendance,  sat  on  various  committees, 
spoke  fairly  often  (though  without  much  distinction)  in  debates  on 
financial  or  mercantile  questions,  was  sensible  but  rather  commonplace 
in  substance,  and,  so  far  from  proving  irreconcileable,  gave  promise  of 
mellowing  into  an  adroit  opportunist.  His  friend,  Olivarria,  whom  he 
had  defended  in  the  Huracdn  case,  soon  found  that  the  Cortes  was  no 
place  for  a  sincere  republican,  and  resigned  his  seat.  Espronceda  had 
no  such  doctrinaire  difficulties  or  scruples.  All  traces  of  the  old  revolu- 
tionary had  vanished;  he  debated  prosaic  practical  questions  in  a 
prosaic  practical  way;  and  his  latest  biographer  makes  the  alarming 
suggestion  that,  had  his  life  been  prolonged,  he  might  have  suppressed 
his  poems,  followed  the  example  of  other  Numantinos,  and  declined  into 
an  embassy  or  a  marquessate. 

Incredible  variations  constantly  occur  in  the  unstable  kaleidoscope 
of  Spanish  politics,  but  it  is  useless  to  discuss  what  might  have  been. 
Espronceda  was  at  the  end  of  his  career.  He  was  present  at  the  Cortes 
for  the  last  time  on  May  17.  He  had  become  engaged  to  Bernarda 
Beruete,  went  to  visit  her  at  Aranjuez,  hurried  back  to  his  parliamentary 
duties,  caught  cold,  and  on  May  20  wrote  a  note  to  the  President  of 


JAMES    FITZMAURICE-KELLY  31 

Congress  apologizing  for  his  absence  on  the  plea  of  severe  illness.  It 
was  no  formal  excuse.  His  health,  never  strong,  had  been  failing  for 
some  months;  he  was  noticeably  weaker  when  he  returned  from  The 
Hague,  and  it  is  said  that  his  parliamentary  speeches  were  delivered  in 
so  low  a  tone  as  to  be  inaudible  to  most  of  the  deputies.  Though  he 
had  some  of  the  habits  of  a  valetudinarian,  he  was  generally  careless  in 
his  manner  of  life,  had  taxed  his  constitution  severely,  and  had  no 
reserve  of  strength.  His  friends  thought  later  that  the  doctors  had 
mismanaged  his  case.  A  proposal  to  perform  the  operation  of  tracheo- 
tomy was  rejected  first  of  all  by  a  majority,  and,  when  it  was  finally 
determined  to  resort  to  it,  the  opportunity  had  gone  by.  Espronceda 
died  at  19,  Calle  de  la  Greda,  Madrid,  on  Monday,  May  23, 1842,  at  nine 
o'clock  in  the  morning.  He  was  in  his  thirty-fourth  year.  According 
to  the  medical  certificate,  he  died  of  inflammation  of  the  larynx.  His 
death  was  duly  reported  the  same  day  to  the  President  of  Congress : 
Luis  Gonzalez  Bravo,  one  of  the  most  sinister  figures  in  the  history  of 
Spanish  politics,  attempted  to  express  his  grief  at  the  loss  of  one  who 
had  been  his  friend.  He  broke  down,  and  resumed  his  seat  in  tears : 
for  once,  he  was  evidently  sincere1.  Espronceda  was  buried  on  May  24, 
in  the  cemetery  of  San  Nicolas.  In  one  of  his  most  famous  poems 

occurs  the  line : 

i  S61o  en  la  paz  de  los  se'pulcros  creo  ! 

Even  this  slight  act  of  faith  proved  excessive.  Sixty  years  later,  on 
May  24,  1902,  Espronceda's  remains  were  disinterred,  and  removed  to 
a  spot  in  the  cemetery  of  San  Justo  set  apart,  at  the  suggestion  of 
Nunez  de  Arce,  for  the  'illustrious  dead.' 

II. 

The  most  important  events  of  Espronceda's  life  are  now  known  to  us 
as  completely  as  they  are  ever  likely  to  be,  and  there  is  a  tendency  to 
interpret  the  facts  in  a  way  which  leaves  him  a  less  interesting  and  less 
romantic  figure  than  he  appeared  in  the  light  of  legend.  Scarcely  any 
hero  is  as  great  arid  good  as  he  seems  to  his  impassioned  admirers.  The 
gods  will  give  us  some  faults  to  make  us  men,  and  it  is  only  too  easy  to 
point  to  many  blemishes  in  Espronceda's  character  and  conduct.  But 
there  is  some  danger  of  his  being  treated  unjustly  by  the  new  school  of 
critics.  He  was  so  powerfully  influenced  by  external  conditions  that  the 
details  of  his  biography  must  be  kept  constantly  in  mind  by  anyone  who 

1  Gonzalez  Bravo  spoke  with  more  self-command  next  day,  following  the  celebrated 
Joaquin  Maria  Lopez  who  delivered  the  formal  funeral  oration. 


32  Espronceda 

wishes  to  form  a  fair  judgement.  Pampered  by  a  fond  mother,  flattered 
by  an  appreciative  schoolmaster,  educated  at  hazard,  never  submitted 
to  any  stern  moral  or  intellectual  discipline,  he  was  brought  up  in 
most  unfavourable  circumstances.  It  is  not  astonishing  that  he  com- 
mitted many  extravagances ;  the  wonder  is  that  with  such  training — or 
rather  want  of  training — he  committed  so  few.  Extravagance  was  in 
the  air  he  breathed.  It  is  easy  for  us  in  our  armchairs  to  smile  at  the 
boy-conspirator  of  fifteen  swearing  with  his  fellow-Numantines  to  bring 
Ferdinand  VII  to  justice.  It  is  easy  to  show  that  Espronceda's  material 
sacrifices  for  his  political  views  were  slight,  and  that  in  London — if  not 
in  Lisbon — his  egotism  overcame  his  principles.  It  is  easy  to  ridicule 
him  for  profiting  by  an  amnesty  to  join  the  fashionable  Guardia  de 
Corps,  for  defending  republican  theories  yesterday  and  accepting  a  post 
under  the  Regency  to-morrow,  for  posing  as  a  gloomy  misogynist  in 
print  one  spring,  and  exerting  all  his  fascinations  to  please  the  visitors 
at  Carratraca  next  autumn1.  These  contradictions  are  flagrant,  but 
politicians  and  poets  are  chartered  libertines.  Espronceda  made  no 
pretension  to  consistency,  and  had  not  the  strength  of  will  to  retreat 
into  a  tower  of  ivory,  like  Alfred  de  Vigny.  He  was  not  consciously 
insincere,  but  his  feelings  were  more  violent  than  deep,  and  as  a  purely 
intellectual  force  he  may  be  disregarded.  Let  us  remember  that,  as  he 
himself  tells  us,  he  was  next  to  uneducated : 

;  Mis  estudios  deje  £  los  quince  afios, 

Y  me  entregue  del  mundo  a  los  enganos ! 

He  was  swayed  more  by  emotion  than  argument,  his  temper  was  natur- 
ally irreflective,  and  he  did  not  attain  the  years  that  bring  the  philosophic 
mind.  Sensitive  and  untrained,  he  never  ceased  to  be  a  creature  of 
impulse,  tossed  to  and  fro  by  instincts  which  (it  is  bare  justice  to  say) 
were,  more  often  than  not,  ardent  and  generous.  To  expect  from  this 
inconstant,  elfin  spirit  a  reasoned  consistency  in  conduct  or  in  utterance 
is  to  be  blind  to  facts  and  their  consequences. 

We  think  of  Espronceda  mainly  as  a  poet  of  the  Revolution,  and 
who  can  deny  that  he  was  a  romantic  Liberal  ?  Yet  it  is  doubtful  if 
he  had  any  grasp  of  political  doctrine.  Shelley  noted  '  the  canker  of 
aristocracy '  in  Byron,  and  symptoms  of  this  disorder  are  discernible  in 
Espronceda.  He  was  taught  by  his  parents  to  despise  the  unpatriotic 
reaction  embodied  in  the  person  of  Ferdinand  VII,  and,  like  all  honest 

1  In  September,  1840 — just  a  year  after  Teresa's  death,  and  shortly  before  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Canto  d  Teresa  in  El  Diablo  Mundo — Valera,  then  a  mere  boy,  met  Espronceda 
during  the  fashionable  bathing-season  at  Carratraca.  He  has  given  an  amusing,  cynical 
account  of  the  poet's  demeanour  in  the  Florilegio  de  poesias  castellanas  del  siglo  xix 
(Madrid,  1902),  vol.  v,  p.  204. 


JAMES    FITZMAUKICE-KELLY  33 

Spaniards,  he  hated  the  Ugartes  and  Chamorros  who  disgraced  the 
Court.  His  association  with  Lista  lent  a  tinge  of  mild  liberalism  to  his 
incoherent  opinions,  and,  in  common  with  most  literary  men  of  his  time, 
he  fought  against  a  particularly  stupid,  capricious  and  vindictive  form 
of  tyranny.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  had  ever  thought 
out  a  system  of  political  doctrine,  or  even  that  he  was  capable  of  think- 
ing out  such  a  system  for  himself;  and  to  charge  him  with  contemplating 
apostasy  is  to  impute  to  him  a  gravity  and  deliberation  of  purpose 
foreign  to  his  nature.  The  only  ground  for  this  view  is  that  he  satirizes 
a  certain  type  of  National  Militiaman  in  the  First  Canto  of  El  Diablo 
Mundo,  and  a  certain  type  of  rationalist  in  the  Third  Canto : 

i  Oh  gloria  !  j  oh  gloria  !  ;  lisonjero  engano 
Que  d  tanta  gente  honrada  precipitas  ! 
Tii  al  mercader  pacffico,  en  extrano 
Guerrero  truecas,  y  £  lidiar  le  excitas; 
Su  rostro  vuelves  bigotudo,  hurano, 
Con  entusiasmo  militar  le  agitas, 
Y  haces  que  sea  su  mirada  horrenda 
Susto  de  su  familia  y  de  su  tienda.... 

Leyendo  estd,  las  Ruinas  de  Palmira 
Detras  del  mostrador  a  aquellas  horas 
Que  cuenta  libres,  y  a  educarse  aspira 
En  la  buena  moral, 
Y  a  la  patria  d  ser  util  en  su  oficio, 
Habiendo  ya  elegido  en  su  buen  juicio, 
En  cuanto  d,  religidn,  la  natural ; 
Y  mirando  con  lastima  d  su  abuelo, 
Que  fue  al  fin  un  esclavo, 
Y  el  mezquino  desvelo 
De  los  pasados  hombres  y  porfias, 
Rinde  gracias  &  Dios,  que  el  mundo  al  cabo 
Ha  logrado  alcanzar  mejores  di'as. 

It  is  impossible  to  draw  any  wide  inferences  from  such  humoristic 
stanzas,  except  that  Espronceda  disliked  tradesmen,  thought  them  out- 
of-place  away  from  their  counters,  and  was  of  Voltaire's  opinion  that 
incredulity  was  the  privilege  of  gentlemen.  He  enforces  this  view  in 

an  earlier  passage : 

. . .  ahora  que  un  sastre  es  esprit  fort, 
No  hay  ya  vision  que  nos  inspire  horror. 

There  is  no  reason  for  believing  that  Espronceda  was  more  in  earnest 
here  than  in  his  description  of  a  typical  Spanish  Cabinet : 

'Basta,  silencio,  hipdcritas  parleros, 
Turba  de  charlatanes  eruditas, 
Tan  cortos  en  hazanas  y  rastreros 
Como  en  palabras  vanas  infinites: 
Ministros  de  escribientes  y  porteros, 
De  la  naci<5n  eternos  parasitos : 
Basta,  que  el  coraz6n  airado  salta, 
La  lengua  calla  y  la  paciencia  falta. 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  3 


34  Espronceda 

These  lines,  and  many  more  like  them,  are  the  petulancies  of  a  spoilt 
child  of  genius  who  feels  that  the  world  is  out  of  joint,  whose  impres- 
sions are  singularly  vivid,  whose  misconception  of  practical  difficulties 
is  vast,  and  who  avenges  his  own  impotency  to  set  matters  right  by 
ridiculing  all  conditions  of  society.  Espronceda  is  everything  by  turns 
and  nothing  long.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  penetrate  through  his 
armour  of  affectations,  of  indifference,  cynicism,  and  pessimistic  humour 
to  the  real  man,  who  is  genuine  enough,  if  not  deep.  And  it  is  scarcely 
more  easy  to  -estimate  his  literary  achievement. 

His  prose  works  may  be  neglected.  It  would  be  unkind  to  say  that 
Pdginas  olvidadas1  is  an  appropriate  title  for  a  collection  of  stray 
papers  (on  miscellaneous  subjects)  which  do  not  deserve  to  be  remem- 
bered. They  contain  some  happy  touches,  and  relate  some  interesting 
personal  experiences ;  but  they  add  nothing  to  the  author's  fame.  So 
also  with  respect  to  Sancho  Saldana :  it  gives  no  promise  that  a  great 
novelist  was  lost  in  Espronceda.  Nor  need  we  pause  to  consider  his 
dramatic  work.  His  most  ambitious  effort,  Blanca  de  Borbon — the 
manuscript  of  which  is  now  in  the  British  Museum2 — may  take  place 
beside  Byron's  Sardanapalus,  and  the  question  whether  the  first  two 
acts  are  classical  and  the  rest  (said  to  have  been  written  during,  or 
after,  his  exile)  romantic  is  scarcely  worth  determining.  Nor  would 
Espronceda  be  remembered  by  the  unfinished  Pelayo.  Except  perhaps 
by  Victor  Hugo,  no  great  epics  were  produced  in  the  nineteenth  century 
— not  even  by  the  cleverest  of  schoolboys.  El  Pelayo  has  vigorous  and 
impressive  passages,  but  they  are  not  specially  characteristic  of  Espron- 
ceda. Take,  for  instance,  the  eighth  stanza : 

Abre  la  flor  naciente  el  lindo  seno, 
Y  recibiendo  el  encendido  rayo, 
En  la  esmeralda  del  otero  ameno 
Vierte  su  dulce  olor,  gloria  del  mayo : 
Pasa  el  arroyo  placido  y  sereno, 
Solfcito  besandola  al  soslayo, 
Ella  en  vivos  colores  se  ilumina 
Y  al  dulce  beso  la  cabeza  inclina. 

This  is  an  excellent  stanza  in  its  place,  is  perfectly  appropriate,  and 
perhaps  indistinguishable  from  the  rest  of  the  poem.  But,  as  it 

1  Pdginas  olvidadas  de  Espronceda  (Madrid,  1882).      This,  however,   is  the  second 
edition.    A  note  in  Obras  poeticas  y  escritos  en  prosa  (p.  245)  gives  the  title  as  Pdginas 
perdidas  :  possibly  this  refers  to  the  first  edition  which  I  have  not  seen. 

2  Add.  MSS.  28972.     See  Pascual  de  Gayangos,  Catalogue  of  the  Spanish  Manuscripts 
in  the  British  Museum,  vol.  n,  p.  533.     Gayangos  is  mistaken  in  saying  that  this  drama 
was  acted  and  printed  in  1835  as  the  composition  of  Antonio  Gil  y  Zarate  :  the  two  plays 
are  independent  of  one  another.    It  is  generally  stated  that  Espronceda's  Blanca  de  Borbon 
is  unpublished,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  published  at  Madrid  in  1870  :  see  Sr.  D.  Adolfo 
Bonilla  y  San  Martin's  valuable  essay  in  La  Espana  Moderna  (June,  1908). 


JAMES   FITZMAURICE-KELLY  35 

happens,  it  was  written  by  Lista,  and  why  Espronceda  should  have 
incorporated  it  some  sixteen  years  afterwards  in  the  substance  of  El 
Pelayo  is  not  easy  to  explain  except  on  the  hypothesis  that  he  had 
forgotten  who  wrote  it,  or  that  he  thought  his  master's  manner  and 
his  own  were  identical.  Despite  its  fitful  brilliancy  El  Pelayo  is  no 
longer  to  our  taste ;  but  some  of  Espronceda's  personal  friends  regarded 
it  as  his  masterpiece,  and,  in  the  funeral  oration  delivered  at  the  poet's 
grave,  Joaquin  Maria  Ldpez  declared  that  El  Pelayo  entitled  the  author 
to  a  place  beside  Homer.  This  freakish  judgment  survives  only  as 
a  curiosity  of  criticism. 

We  are  on  surer  ground  when  we  come  to  Espronceda's  lyrical  verse, 
though  here  he  is  under  suspicion  as  being  a  mere  imitator  of  Byron. 
Most  of  us  have  heard,  and  some  of  us  in  our  ignorant  good  faith  have 
repeated,  the  story  of  Espronceda's  poems  being  read  by  the  Conde  de 
Toreno,  who  is  reported  to  have  said  that  he  '  preferred  the  originals.' 
This  would  explain  the  insertion  of  two  virulent  stanzas  in  the  First 
Canto  of  El  Diablo  Mundo : 

No  es  dado  a  todos  alcanzar  la  gloria 
De  alzar  un  monumento  suntuoso 
Que  eternice  a  lo  siglos  la  memoria 
De  algun  hecho  pasado  grandioso : 
Quedele  tanto  al  que  escribid  la  historia 
De  nuestro  pueblo,  al  escritor  lujoso, 
Al  Conde  que  del  publico  -tesoro 
Se  alzo  a  si  mismo  un  monumento  de  oro. 

Al  que  supo,  erigiendo  un  monumento 
(Que  tal  le  llama  en  su  modestia  suma), 
Premio  dar  a  su  gran  merecimiento, 
Y  en  pluma  de  oro  convertir  su  pluma, 
Al  ilustre  asturiano,  al  gran  talento, 
Flor  de  la  historia  y  de  la  hacienda  espuma, 
Al  necio  audaz  de  coraz<5n  de  cieno, 
A  quien  llaman  el  CONDE  DE  TORENO. 

According  to  Sr.  Cort<5n,  the  current  story  is  apocryphal ;  the  verses 
were  written  to  satirize  the  boastful  vanity  of  a  political  opponent,  and 
Toreno,  we  are  assured,  never  made  the  sarcastic  remark  ascribed  to 
him.  Yet  he  might  have  made  it,  had  he  had  the  bad  manners  and  the 
wit.  Espronceda's  relation  to  Byron  has  not  escaped  notice  since 
Toreno's  time.  Valera,  one  of  Espronceda's  most  ardent  partisans, 
observes  vague  points  of  resemblance  between  The  Corsair  and  the 

Cancion  del  pirata : 

Con  diez  canones  por  banda, 
Viento  en  popa  d  toda  vela, 
No  corta  el  mar,  sino  vuela 
Un  velero  bergantfn : 

3—2 


36  Espronceda 

Bajel  pirata  que  llaman 
For  su  bravura  el  Temido, 
En  todo  mar  conocido 
Del  uno  al  otro  confin. 

Dona  Elvira's  letter  at  the  end  of  the  Second  Part  of  El  Estudiante 
de  Salamanca1  is,  as  Valera  points  out,  an  admirable  (though  rather 
sentimentalized)  translation  of  Julia's  letter  in  Don  Juan  (Canto  I, 
st.  cxcii — cxcvii),  and  the  humoristic  digressions  are  obviously  in 
Byron's  manner.  But  similar  resemblances  to  Byron  are  frequent  in 
poets  of  Espronceda's  generation ;  they  may  be  found  equally  in 
Musset,  and  Leopardi,  not  to  speak  of  Heine  and  Pushkin.  Like  all 
young  poets,  including  Byron  himself,  Espronceda  began  by  being 
imitative ;  he  makes  no  secret  of  his  indebtedness  to  predecessors,  and 
even  admits  it  with  quixotic  generosity.  Oscar  y  Malvina  is  frankly 
described  as  an  '  imitaci(5n  del  estilo  de  Osian,'  and  a  mutilated  quota- 
tion from  Don  Juan  at  the  beginning  of  the  Second  Part  of  El 
Estudiante  de  Salamanca  might  easily  suggest  that  the  relation 
between  the  two  poems  is  much  closer  than  it  actually  is.  Valera 
traces  to  Be*ranger  the  source  of  the  Cancidn  del  cosaco,  and  as  the 
influence  of  Faust  has  been  detected  in  Manfred  so  Valera  detects  the 
influence  of  Faust  in  El  Diablo  Mundo  which — so  he  was  intrepid 
enough  to  say — exceeds  the  model  in  imaginative  force  and  verbal 
splendour.  And  no  doubt,  if  it  were  worth  while,  it  might  be  shown 
that  Espronceda  derived  occasional  inspiration  from  many  diverse 
writers — from  Quintana,  perhaps  from  Quinet's  Ahasverus,  of  which 
faint  reminiscences  seem  to  echo  in  certain  stanzas  of  El  Diablo 
Mundo.  Readers  of  Espronceda  are  always  on  the  watch  for  resem- 
blances to  Byron,  and  doubtless  the  resemblances  are  there;  but 
Espronceda  goes  much  further  afield.  The  famous  poem  A  Jarifa  en 
una  orgia  is  not  more  nearly  related  to  Childe  Harold's  'unpremeditated 
lay'  (To  Inez)  than  the  hymn  Al  Sol  is  related  to  Ossian. 

But  these  are  the  tithes  of  mint  and  anise  and  cummin.  The 
influence  of  Byron  on  El  Diablo  Mundo  is  as  unquestionable  as  is  the 
influence  of  Pulci  on  Beppo  and  Don  Juan.  The  mere  borrowings  of 
Espronceda  from  Byron  are  unimportant,  but  there  is  a  striking 
resemblance  in  the  temperament  and  attitude  of  the  two  poets,  and 
both  have  suffered  from  the  violent  reaction  against  their  individual 

1  The  poem  is  based  on  an  old  popular  legend  :  see  the  romances  entitled  Lisardo 
el  estudiante  de  Ctfrdoba  in  Agustin  Duran,  Eomancero  General,  Nos.  1271-2.  As 
Sr.  Piueyro  has  pointed  out  in  El  Romanticismo  en  Espana  (pp.  179 — 180),  Zorrilla  deals 
with  the  same  legend  in  El  Capitdn  Montoya. 


JAMES   FITZMAUEICE-KELLY  37 

type  of  histrionic  romanticism.  Byron  has,  of  course,  lost  more  than 
Espronceda,  for  he  had  far  more  to  lose.  Many  have  said  in  their  haste 
that  Byron  was  not  a  great  poet,  and  some  that  he  was  not  even  a  true 
poet.  Espronceda  has  not  been  dethroned  so  peremptorily.  Never  so 
idolized  as  Byron,  he  has  never  been  so  belittled.  Again,  he  had  no 
contemporary  rivals  so  formidable  as  Keats  and  Shelley,  as  Coleridge  and 
Wordsworth:  in  saying  this  we  do  no  injustice  to  the  troubadouring 
Zorrilla,  nor  to  the  Cuban  poetess  Gertrudis  G6mez  de  Avellaneda 
who — though  much  more  than  satellites — came  under  his  spell.  Lastly, 
his  successors  in  the  next  poetic  generation — the  iridescent  Becquer, 
the  hedonistic  Campoamor,  and  the  unquiet  Nunez  de  Arce — were  not 
precisely  Tennysons,  Brownings  and  Arnolds.  Valera  maintained  that 
in  natural  endowment  Espronceda  was  not  inferior  to  Byron  and  Goethe ; 
but  Valera  was  a  master  of  paradox  whose  sallies  are  not  to  be  taken 
too  solemnly.  No  one  else,  at  any  rate,  pretends  that  Espronceda  was 
Byron's  match  in  momentum  and  luminous  wit,  and,  though  he  has 
escaped  eclipse,  criticism  has  not  spared  him.  He  has  been  charged 
with  scepticism,  misanthropy,  and  immorality,  and  unquestionably  he 
did  not  write  for  young  people ;  his  workmanship  has  been  pronounced 
defective,  and,  though  he  wrote  so  little,  he  certainly  published  too 
much;  and  those  who  hold  him  to  have  been  unequal  to  a  prolonged 
flight  are  careful  to  remind  us  that  El  Diablo  Mundo  remains,  like  El 
Pelayo,  a  torso.  There  is  substance  in  this  elaborate  indictment. 
Chaotic  in  thought,  Espronceda  is  apt  to  be  erratic  in  execution,  as  he 
ingenuously  admits: 

Terco  escribo  en  mi  loco  desvarfo 
Sin  ton  ni  son,  y  para  gusto  info... 
Sin  regla  ni  compds  canta  mi  lira 
;  Solo  mi  ardiente  corazon  me  inspira ! 

He  drops  headlong  from  the  flaming  clouds  to  earth,  and  his  pathos  too 
often  modulates  into  a  dulcet  sentimentalism.  The  shadow  of  the 
amateur  lies  upon  his  page.  And  he  offends  against  our  conventional 
code  of  reticence :  we  expect  fewer  rhetorical  professions  of  disdain  for 
public  opinion,  and  fewer  appeals  to  middle-class  sympathy. 

But  when  all  is  said,  when  every  due  deduction  is  made,  enough 
remains  to  justify  Espronceda's  eminent  position  among  Spanish  poets. 
It  is  no  fault  of  his  that  the  uncritical  have  admired  his  defects  more 
than  his  good  qualities.  It  is  not  wholly  his  fault  that  we  are  out  of 
harmony  with  him  ;  the  canons  of  taste  vary  continually.  He  is  not  to 
be  exhibited  in  a  series  of  elegant  extracts,  but  some  idea  of  his  variety, 


38  Espronceda 

his  strength  and  weakness,  his  poignant  note  of  personal  emotion,  and 
his  brilliant  metrical  design  may  be  gathered  from  the  hackneyed  but 
justly  famous  address  to  Jarifa1 : 

Yo  me  lanze  con  atrevido  vuelo 
Fuera  del  mundo  en  la  region  eterea, 
Y  halle  la  duda,  y  el  radiante  cielo 
Vi  convertirse  en  ilusi<5n  aerea.... 

;  Oh  !  cesa :   no,  yo  no  quiero 
Ver  mas,  ni  saber  ya  nada : 
Harta  mi  alma  y  postrada, 
S<51o  anhela  descansar. 

En  mf  muera  el  sentimiento, 
Pues  ya  muri6  mi  ventura, 
Ni  el  placer  ni  la  tristura 
Vuelvan  mi  pecho  &  turbar. 

Pasad,  pasad  en  6ptica  ilusoria 
Y  otras  j<5venes  almas  enganad: 
Nacaradas  imagenes  de  gloria, 
Coronas  de  oro  y  de  laurel,  pasad. 

This  is  but  one  example — not  the  best,  but  perhaps  the  most 
characteristic — of  Espronceda's  manner.  His  variety  of  tone,  his 
metrical  mastery,  his  flashing  humour,  his  poignant  tenderness,  his 
interpretation  of  life  are  exhibited  on  a  larger  scale  in  El  Diablo  Mundo, 
a  masterpiece  which  is  also  a  fantastic  medley  of 

Batallas,  tempestades,  amorfos, 
Por  mar  y  tierra,  lances,  descripciones 
De  campos  y  ciudades,  desaffos, 
Y  el  desastre  y  furor  de  las  pasiones, 
Goces,  dichas,  aciertos,  desvarfos, 
Con  algunas  morales  reflexiones 
Acerca  de  la  vida  y  de  la  muerte, 
De  mi  propia  cosecha,  que  es  mi  fuerte. 

En  varias  formas,  con  diverse  estilo, 
En  diferentes  gdneros,  calzando 
Ora  el  coturno  tragico  de  Esquilo, 
Ora  la  trompa  epica  sonando, 
Ora  cantando  placido  y  tranquilo, 
Ora  en  trivial  lenguaje,  ora  burlando, 
Conforme  este  mi  humor,  porque  d  el  me  ajusto, 
Y  al!4  van  versos  donde  va  mi  gusto. 

And  he  keeps  his  promise :  it  is  a  great  thing  to  say,  but  it  can 
be  maintained.  Though  cut  off  at  the  moment  when  his  incomplete, 
impetuous  and  turbid  genius  was  on  the  point  of  clarifying  and  maturing, 
Espronceda  has  bequeathed  us  a  series  of  poems  which,  despite  imper- 

1  Jarifa  is  not,  as  some  have  supposed,  a  pseudonym  of  Teresa.  Jarifa,  who  long 
survived  Espronceda,  is  the  theme  of  a  poem  by  Espronceda's  friend,  Miguel  de  los  Santos 
Alvarez  :  see  Sr.  Pineyro,  El  Romanticismo  en  Espaila,  pp.  359 — 360. 


JAMES    FITZMAUBICE-KELLY  39 

fections  of  art,  admirably  express  his  exciting  personality,  and  the 
feverish  turmoil  of  his  age.  Notwithstanding  his  burden  of  disillusion, 
he  imposed  himself  on  his  contemporaries  by  what  Th6ophile  Gautier 
called  his  '  e"nergie  passionn£e  et  farouche.'  He  still  stirs  us  with  his 
elemental  force,  his  resonant  music,  his  prodigal  potency  of  phrase,  his 
communicative  ardour  for  noble  causes.  A  less  rare  combination  of 
qualities  would  vindicate  his  renown1. 

JAMES  FITZMAURICE-KELLY. 
LONDON. 


1  While  the  last  pages  of  the  above  were  passing  through  the  press,  Mr  Philip  H. 
Churchman  has  reissued  Blanco,  de  Borbon  in  the  Revue  Hispanique  (vol.  xvi.  no.  52),  and 
has  appended  to  his  reprint  a  very  useful  bibliography  of  Espronceda's  works. 


THE  TEXT   OF   CHAPMAN'S   CONSPIRACY  AND 
TRAGEDY   OF   CHARLES   DUKE   OF   BYRON. 

THE  date  of  Chapman's  double  play  on  the  fall  and  death  of  the 
famous  Due  de  Biron  may  be  established  within  comparatively  narrow 
dates.  It  is  based  upon  Grimeston's  General  Inventorie  of  the  History 
of  France — a  translation  and  compilation  of  the  works  of  Jean  de  Serres, 
P.  Matthieu  and  Palma  Cayet,  which  appeared  in  1607  * — and  the  verbal 
coincidences  are  so  close  that  it  is  quite  certain  that  Chapman  used  the 
English  translation  and  not  the  French  originals.  The  first  mention  of 
the  play  is  in  the  despatch  of  La  Boderie  (not  Beaumont,  as  Fleay  says, 
Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama,  vol.  I,  p.  62),  the  French  Ambassador 
at  the  Court  of  James  I.  This  despatch,  preserved  in  the  Bibliotheque 
Nationale  (MSS.  fr.  15984,  p.  240  sqq.),  was  first  printed  by  F.  von 
Raumer  (Brief e  aus  Paris  zur  Erlduterung  der  Geschichte  des  sechszehnten 
und  siebzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  Leipzig,  1831,  vol.  II,  p.  276)  under  the 
date,  April  5, 16082.  The  English  translation  of  these  letters  (History  of 
the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries  illustrated  by  Original  Documents, 
by  F.  von  Raumer,  London,  1835,  vol.  II,  p.  219)  misprinted  the  date 
April  5,  1605,  a  mistake  which  has  found  its  way  into  the  account  of 
Chapman's  life,  prefixed  to  the  reprint  of  his  plays  (Pearson,  1873, 
vol.  I,  p.  xxi,  footnote)  and  into  the  article  in  the  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography  (vol.  x,  p.  51),  where,  as  a  result,  the  Byron  plays  are  said 
to  have  been  produced  in  the  year  1605.  I  have  not  seen  the  original 
despatch,  but  a  friend  who  examined  it  for  me  in  Paris  (Mr  Clemens, 
now  Reference  Librarian  at  Princeton  University)  assures  me  that 
Raumer's  translation  though  '  both  free  and  condensed '  is  accurate  in 
substance. 

I  append  the  English  translation  as  given  in  the  work  referred  to 
above :  '  April  8,  1608,  I  caused  certain  players  to  be  forbid  from  acting 

1  Entered  S.  R.  March  3, 1606,  under  the  name  of  The  French  Inventory,  to  George  Eld. 

2  Apparently  it  should  be  April  8. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  41 

the  history  of  the  Duke  of  Byron ;  when,  however,  they  saw  that  the 
whole  court  had  left  the  town,  they  persisted  in  acting  it ;  nay,  they 
brought  upon  the  stage  the  Queen  of  France  and  Mademoiselle  de 
Verneuil.  The  former,  having  first  accosted  the  latter  with  very  hard 
words,  gave  her  a  box  on  the  ear.  At  my  suit  three  of  them  (i.e.  the 
players)  were  arrested,  but  the  principal  person,  the  author,  escaped.' 

No  such  scene  as  that  here  referred  to  appears  in  Chapman's  play, 
but  as  there  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  quarrel  between  the  queen 
and  Henry's  mistress  in  the  masque  which  occurs  in  the  mutilated 
second  act  of  the  Tragedy  of  Byron,  we  are  safe  in  concluding  that  it 
was  struck  out  of  the  copy  by  the  censor  before  the  play  was  allowed  to 
be  printed.  Other  omissions  or  alterations  in  the  play  will  be  referred 
to  later.  That  the  despatch  refers  to  Chapman's  play  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt. 

The  play  is  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Registers  on  June  5  (not  May, 
as  Fleay  gives  it,  English  Drama,  vol.  I,  p.  62),  1608,  as  follows : 

'Thomas  Thorp  entered  for  his  copie  under  thandes  of  Sir  George  Buck  and 
the  wardens  A  booke  called  The  Conspiracy  and  Tragedie  of  Charles  Duke  of  Byron 
written  by  Georg  Chapman.' 

There  is  no  hint  in  this  entry  that  the  publication  of  the  play  was 
to  be  stayed.  Probably  the  initial  difficulties  had  been  already  over- 
come and  the  copy  entered  for  Thomas  -Thorp  had  been  censored,  or 
'dismembered'  to  use  Chapman's  own  phrase,  by  the  official  licenser. 
It  is  to  these  difficulties,  and  to  the  long  delay  of  the  licenser  in  giving 
his  permission,  that  Chapman  refers  in  the  extremely  interesting  letter 
discovered  by  Mr  Dobell  among  a  collection  of  letters  apparently  by 
Chapman,  which  he  published  in  the  Athenaeum  for  April  6,  1907. 

The  plays  were  published  some  time  in  1608  with  the  following 
title-page :  The  |  Conspiracie  |  And  j  Tragedie  |  of  |  Charles  Duke  of 
Byron,  Marshall  of  France.  |  Acted  lately  in  two  playes,  at  the 
Black-Friers.  |  Written  by  George  Chapman.  |  Printed  by  G.  Eld  for 
Thomas  Thorppe,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  |  the  Tygers  head  in  Paules 
Church-yard.  |  1608.  The  second  part  has  a  half-title  :  The  |  Tragedie 
of  Charles  |  Duke  of  Byron.  |  By  George  Chapman.  |  Two  copies  of 
this  edition  are  to  be  found  in  the  British  Museum  (C.  30.  e.  2,  and 
C.  12.  g.  5).  In  case  of  difference  I  will  refer  to  these  as  Aj  and  A2 
respectively.  Copies  are  also  found  in  the  Bodleian  (Malone  241)  and 
in  the  Dyce  collection  at  the  Albert  and  Victoria  Museum. 

The  Byron  plays  alone  of  Chapman's  dramas  achieved  the  honour  of 
republication  in  the  poet's  lifetime.  The  second  edition  appeared  in 


42     Text  of  Chapman  s  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

1625  with  the  following  title-page:  The  |  Conspiracie,  And  |  Tragoedy 
of  |  Charles  |  Duke  of  Byron,  |  Marshall  of  France.  \  Acted  lately  in 
two  Playes,  at  the  \  Blacke-Friers,  and  other  publique  Stages.  \  Written 
by  George  Chapman.  \  London :  |  Printed  by  N.  0.  for  Thomas  Thorpe. 
1625.  The  second  part  has  a  separate  title-page  with  the  same  imprint 
except  that  the  words  'Conspiracie  and'  are  omitted.  Two  copies  of 
this  edition  are  in  the  British  Museum,  C.  45.  b.  9,  and  644.  d.  46. 

The  latter  is  a  mutilated  copy  lacking  signatures  H4 — 12  inclusive, 
i.e.  the  last  two  pages  of  the  Conspiracy,  the  title-page  and  first  page  of 
the  Tragedy.  The  first  copy  contains  MSS.  notes,  said  in  the  Museum 
Catalogue  to  be  by  Philip  Earl  of  Pembroke,  but  Mr  Herbert  of  the 
MSS.  department  of  the  Museum  assures  me  that  the  handwriting 
cannot  be  identified  as  Pembroke's,  though  it  is  a  seventeenth  century 
hand.  The  assignment  to  Pembroke  is  made  on  the  authority  of 
Mr  Kerslake  of  Bristol,  apparently  a  former  owner  of  the  book.  Some 
of  the  MSS.  corrections  are  valuable  and  I  will  refer  to  them  as  MS. 

There  is  a  copy  in  the  Bodleian  (Malone  206) ;  and  copies  are  also 
in  the  Dyce  collection,  in  the  library  of  Cambridge  University,  and  in 
the  library  of  Princeton  University  (U.S.A.).  The  British  Museum  also 
possesses  a  copy  of  The  Tragedy  of  Byron,  1625,  bound  separately. 
That  this  is  a  genuine  edition,  and  not  a  mere  reprint  of  the  first,  will 
appear  from  the  numerous  variants  which  will  be  pointed  out.  Un- 
fortunately, however,  the  poet  was  unable  to  restore  the  passages  which 
had  been  struck  out  of  the  copy  originally  sent  to  the  printer  and  the 
play  remains  in  its  mutilated  form.  The  changes  introduced  into  Q2 
are  almost  always  for  the  worse,  and  in  most  cases  appear  to  be  either 
errors,  or  alterations  by  some  proof-corrector.  Here  and  there,  however, 
I  fancy  that  I  see  the  poet's  hand,  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  Chapman 
may  have  marked  a  few  changes  in  the  copy  sent  to  the  printer  for  the 
second  edition.  That  Chapman  sometimes  read  the  proofs  of  his  plays 
we  know  from  a  remark  in  his  Masque  of  the  Middle  Temple  on  the 
'  unexpected  haste '  of  his  printer  who  had  not  sent  him  a  proof  of  that 
work  till  he  had  passed  certain  speeches  (Sig.  A  reverse).  I  shall 
hereafter  denote  the  second  quarto  by  B. 

The  two  plays  were  dedicated  in  an  elaborate  prose  epistle  to 
Sir  Thomas  Walsingham,  the  friend  and  patron  of  Marlowe  and  of 
Chapman,  and  to  his  son  Thomas  Walsingham.  This  dedication 
probably  suggested  to  J.  P.  Collier1  the  name  of  the  patron  to  whom 
he  should  address  the  dedication  in  sonnet  form  which  he  forged  in 
1  See  my  letter  on  this  forgery  in  the  Athenaeum,  June  27,  1908. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  43 

Chapman's  name  and  inserted  in  his  own  copy  of  All  Fooles.  The 
opening  words  of  the  epistle  seem  to  me  plainly  to  imply  that  Chapman 
had  never  previously  dedicated  a  printed  book  to  Walsingham :  '  You 
ever  stood  little  affected  to  these  unprofitable  rites  of  Dedication  (which 
disposition  in  you  hath  made  me  hetherto  dispence  with  your  right  in 
my  other  impressions).' 

After  the  republication  of  the  Byron  plays  in  1625  they  apparently 
fell  into  complete  oblivion.  They  were  not  reprinted,  either  singly  or  in 
any  collection  of  Elizabethan  plays,  for  nearly  two  centuries  and  a  half. 
Lamb  quoted  largely  from  them  in  his  Specimens  of  the  English  Dramatic 
Poets — the  extracts  from  these  plays  cover  five  and  a  half  pages  in 
the  first  edition  (1808).  Shelley  prefixed  four  lines  from  the  third  act 
of  the  Conspiracy  to  his  Laon  and  Cythna,  but  as  these  occur  in  one  of 
Lamb's  extracts,  it  is  doubtful  whether  Shelley  had  ever  read  the  whole 
play.  As  late  as  1845  Lowell,  when  writing  his  enthusiastic  appreciation 
of  Chapman  in  Conversations  on  Some  of  the  Old  Poets  (p.  167),  was 
obliged  to  confess  that  his  knowledge  of  the  Byron  plays  was  confined 
to  the  '  copious  and  judicious  extracts  in  the  "  Retrospective  Review  " 
(vol.  iv,  1821),'  as  they  were  quite  inaccessible  in  America. 

The  plays  were  first  reprinted  in  The  Comedies  and  Tragedies  of 
George  Chapman,  London,  Pearson,  1873,  vol.  II.  The  editor,  whose 
name  does  not  appear  on  the  title-page,  but  who  is  known  to  have 
been  the  late  R.  H.  Shepherd,  states,  p.  184,  that  'a  few  corrections, 
chiefly  clerical,  of  the  edition  of  1625  have  been,  for  the  most  part 
silently,  adopted  in  the  following  reprint.'  This  would  imply  that  the 
reprint  except  for  these  corrections  was  based  upon  the  edition  of  1608. 
But  a  careful  collation  of  the  reprint  with  the  originals  has  convinced 
me  that  the  editor  made  a  transcript  of  the  second  quarto,  compared 
this  with  the  first  quarto,  and  introduced  certain  first  quarto  readings, 
relegating  the  second  quarto  readings  in  these  lines  to  the  foot-notes. 
As  a  consequence,  this  reprint  is  quite  unsatisfactory,  for  one  is  often 
unable  to  discover  whether  one  has  a  first  or  second  quarto  reading 
before  one  in  any  given  passage.  I  shall  in  the  following  article  denote 
this  reprint  by  P. 

This  reprint  wajs  quickly  followed  by  another  by  the  same  editor  in 
The  Works  of  George  Chapman — Plays.  London,  Chatto  and  Windus, 
1874.  This  is  a  modernised  version  of  P.  I  shall  denote  it  by  S. 
The  next,  and  up  to  the  present  date,  the  latest  reprint  is  that  by 
Professor  Phelps  in  the  'Mermaid'  edition  of  Chapman  (1895).  This 
is  founded  on  the  Pearson  reprint  (P.)  and  on  the  modernised  version 


44    Text  of  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

thereof  (S.).  It  has  therefore  no  critical  value,  and,  in  fact,  reproduces 
some  glaring  mistakes  of  P.  and  S.  I  shall,  when  necessary,  refer  to 
it  as  Ph. 

In  the  following  notes  I  shall  attempt  to  record  all  variants  between^ 
A  and  B,  except  mere  variants  of  spelling  or  such  changes  in  punctua- 
tion as  do  not  affect  the  sense,  and  shall  also  note  alterations  made  by 
P.,  S.  and  Ph.,  and  consider  emendations  proposed  by  various  students 
of  the  text.  I  shall  cite  from  Pearson's  reprint  by  page,  and  also  by 
act,  line,  and  scene  from  my  forthcoming  edition  of  Chapman's  plays. 

BYRON'S  CONSPIRACY. 
The  list  of  Dramatis  Personae  was  first  printed  by  Ph. 

I,  i,  22  (p.  188).  Qq.  long-tong'd  Heraulds.  So  P.;  but  S.  has 
loud-tongued,  I  do  not  believe  this  change  is  needed. 

I,  i,  41  (p.  188).  A  Franch  County;  B  French  Bounty  (emended  in 
MS.  to  County).  I  modernise  to  the  more  intelligible  Franche-Comte. 

I,  i,  43  (p.  188).  The  punctuation  of  this  line  differs  in  the  Qq. 
A!  has  a  comma  after  Savoy,  but  A2  has  a  semicolon,  as  have  the  Mai  one 
copy,  and  B.  P.  follows  Ax  which  to  my  mind  confuses  the  sense.  S.  and 
Ph.  make  matters  worse  by  placing  a  semicolon  at  end  of  line.  I  place 
a  colon  after  Savoy  and  drop  the  comma  at  the  close  of  the  line. 

I,  i,  54  (p.  189).  A  projection  ;  B  protection,  a  plain  misprint  as  the 
context  shows. 

I,  i,  112  (p.  190).  A  my  traine',  B  any  traine,  corrected  in  MS. 
to  my. 

I,  i,  116  (p.  190).     A  their  Arts;  B  the  arts,  an  evident  misprint. 

I,  i,  124  (p.  191).  Qq.  mutuall  rites.  Mr  P.  A.  Daniel  suggests 
rights. 

i,  i,  145  (p.  191).  A  Licentiate  Justice;  B  Licentiary  Justice.  P., 
S.,  and  Ph.  all  follow  B ;  but  A  seems  to  me  better  both  for  sense  and 
metre. 

I,  i,  163  (p.  192).  All  Qq.  that  I  have  seen  read  Sunne  be  judge. 
P.'s  Sunne  to  judge  is  a  misprint. 

I,  i,  178  (p.  192).  Qq.  have  defies.  S.  alters  to  denies.  This  is 
unnecessary,  as  defy  has  here  the  obsolete  sense  of  'reject,  renounce.' 
See  N.  E.  D.,  sub  DEFY,  f  5. 

i,  i,  184  (p.  192).     A  Farrefarre;  B  Farrefaire,  a  plain  misprint. 

I,  i,  203  (p.  193).  A  traitrous ;  B  tray  tors.  P.,  S.,  and  Ph.  follow  B. 
The  alteration  is  tempting  as  it  supplies  an  antecedent  for  their  in  the 


T.    M.    PARROTT  45 

next  line.  But  the  loose  construction  is  quite  characteristic  of  Chapman, 
and  I  think  the  alteration  is  more  likely  the  work  of  a  proof-reader  than 
of  the  poet.  Mr  Daniel  prefers  traitors. 

I,  i,  206  (p.  193).     A  neighbor;  B  neighbours,  a  mere  misprint. 

I,  i,  212  (p.  193).  A  peace  now  made;  B  peace  I  now  make.  P.,  S. 
and  Ph.  follow  B  which  is  smoother  metrically,  but  I  prefer  to  follow  A. 
The  change  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  Chapman's. 

I,  ii,  55  (p.  195).     A  enmitie ;  B  enmity,  a  misprint. 

i,  ii,  64  (p.  195).  A  Though  it  offends;  B  Though  it  offend.  P.,  S. 
and  Ph.  follow  B.  I  do  not  believe  the  change  is  by  Chapman. 

I,  ii,  95  (p.  196).  A  And  so,  'tis  nothing;  B  And  so,  'tis  nothing  else. 
The  word  else  appears  to  me  to  have  been  inserted  by  a  puzzled  proof- 
reader. The  reference  is  to  servile  loyalty  which  Picote  pronounces  a 
mere  privation,  a  nothing. 

I,  ii,  98  (p.  197).     A  Which  carve;  B  Which  crave,  a  misprint. 

I,  ii,  127  (p.  197).  A  th'  others  boat;  B  th'  other  boat,  a  mere  mis- 
print which  reappears  in  1.  131,  where  B  has  th'  other  for  th'  others. 

I,  ii,  134  (p.  197).  A  flourishes  of  forme;  B  flourishes  of  fame. 
I  follow  A,  which  suits  the  context  much  better. 

I,  ii,  142  (p.  198).  A  continuate;  B  continuall,  a  misprint,  I  think, 
or  mistaken  attempt  at  correction. 

I,  ii,  175  (p.  199).     A  my  uttermost  answere;  B  my  utmost  answere. 
P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B,  which  is  smoother  metrically,  but  may  be  a 
proof-reader's  change. 

i,  ii,  221  (p.  200).  A  lie  hold ;  B  Is  held.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B ; 
but  A  seems  to  me  to  suit  the  context  better. 

n,  i,  11  (p.  201).  Qq.  guardlike.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  Qq.  This 
word  does  not  appear  in  the  N.  E.  D.,  and  I  cannot  see  that  it  would 
give  a  fit  sense  in  this  passage.  I  have  therefore  emended  it  to  guard- 
less,  a  word  used  by  Chapman  in  his  Iliad,  v,  146.  It  has  there  a 
somewhat  different  meaning,  i.e.  'unguarded,'  from  that  which  is  required 
in  this  passage,  i.e.  '  heedless,'  but  such  an  extension  of  meaning  is  not 
uncommon  in  Chapman. 

n,  i,  16  (p.  201).     A  might  have  smokt ;  B  carelessly  omits  have. 

u,  i,  51  (p.  202).  Qq.  your  service.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  Qq.  The 
phrase  seems  to  me  almost  unintelligible,  and  I  have  therefore  emended 
service  to  servant,  for  which  it  might  easily  be  misread. 

II,  i,  52  (p.  202).     After  this  line  Qq.  have  Exit  Savoy.     It  is  plain, 
however,  that  all  the  Savoyards  leave  the  stage,  so  I  have  added  cum 
suis. 


46     Text  of  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

n,  i,  68  (p.  203).  Qq.  fleade  carcase.  S.  and  Ph.  modernise  flea'd. 
I  am  not  sure  what  meaning  they  attach  to  this;  strictly  it  should 
mean  '  cleared  of  fleas.'  The  proper  modern  form,  of  course,  is  '  flayed.' 

II,  i,  70  (p.  203).  A  an  intelligencing  Lord;  B  an  intelligencing 
instrument.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B,  which  seems  to  me  the  better 
reading,  for  I  can  hardly  believe  that  any  one  but  the  author  would 
have  altered  the  simple,  and  metrically  more  satisfactory,  Lord  to  the 
more  vigorous,  but  less  regular,  instrument. 

II,  i,  73  (p.  203).     A  desperate ;  B  desperatd,  a  misprint. 

II,  i,  90  (p.  204).  A  dares  not  shew  it]  B  dares  no  shew  it,  a 
misprint. 

II,  i,  102  (p.  204).     A  But  what  good ;  B  By  what  good,  a  misprint. 

II,  i,  105  (p.  204).  Qq.  And  dare  assume  it.  Mr  Daniel  suggests  the 
emendation  affirm.  This  is  tempting,  and  affirm  might  easily  be  misread 
assume.  But  assume  in  the  sense  of  '  arrogate,  lay  claim  to '  gives  a 
good  sense,  and  need  not,  I  think,  be  altered. 

n,  i,  122  (p.  204).  A  earths  driest  pallms;  B  palms.  I  take  A  to 
be  a  misprint  for  plains,  which  B  has  still  further  distorted.  Mr  Daniel 
first  suggested  this  reading  to  me. 

II,  i,  133  (p.  205).     A  makes  me  so  skornd.     B  carelessly  omits  so. 

II,  i,  145  (p.  205).  Qq.  How  fit  a  sort.  In  the  Malone  copy  the 
long  s  looks  very  like  an  f,  and  I  was  at  first  tempted  to  read  fort 
(cf.  I,  i,  104,  the... fortress  of  Byron),  which  would  go  well  with  the  verb 
win  in  the  next  line.  But  probably  sort  in  the  sense  of '  lot'  (cf.  Troilus 
and  Cressida,  I,  iii,  376)  is  right. 

n,  i,  149  (p.  205).  Qq.  dull  shore  of  East.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow 
Qq.  Mr  Daniel  suggests  ease,  which  seems  to  me  a  most  happy  emenda- 
tion. There  can  be  no  sense  in  applying  the  epithet  dull  to  the  East, 
whereas  the  antithesis  between  the  dull  shore  of  ease  and  the  industrious 
seas  in  the  next  line  is  quite  in  Chapman's  manner.  The  fact  that  this 
emendation  introduces  a  rhyme  into  a  passage  of  blank  verse  need  not 
give  us  pause,  for  Chapman  is  rather  fond  of  an  occasional  rhyme,  or 
short  rhymed  passage. 

n,  i,  151  (p.  205).  A  Scam anders  flood ;  B  Scamander,  another 
instance  of  a  dropped  s. 

II,  ii  (p.  206).  In  the  direction  at  the  beginning  of  this  scene  A 
misprints  Roisieau;  B  correctly  Roiseau. 

II,  ii,  29  (p.  207).     A  And  are  like  to ;  B  misprints  end  are  like  to. 

II,  ii,  47  (p.  207).  A  further  from  those ;  B  alters  from  to  then. 
This  seems  to  me  the  change  of  a  hasty  proof-reader. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  47 

II,  ii,  68  (p.  208).     A  Argosea ;  B  misprints  Agrosea. 

II,  ii,  93  (p.  208).  A  Fortune?  to  him  was  Juno;  B  drops  the 
question  mark  after  Fortune.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B ;  but  I  am  not 
sure  that  the  question  mark,  which  is  perhaps  equivalent  here  to  an 
exclamation  mark,  should  not  be  retained.  In  that  case  the  subject  to 
was  needs  to  be  supplied  from  the  context,  viz.,  she,  Fortune. 

II,  ii,  97  (p.  208).     A  was  not  forct ;  B  not  was  forc't. 

n,  ii,  143  (p.  210).  A  yet  must  not  give ;  B  yet  you  must  not  give. 
This  seems  to  me  another  instance  of  a  change  for  the  worse  made  by  a 
hasty  proof-reader  attempting  to  better  the  text.  Henry's  speech,  must 
not  give  him  all  the  honor,  or  words  to  that  effect,  is  interrupted  by 
Savoy.  There  is  no  need  for  any  change  except  to  put  a  dash  at  the 
close  of  the  line. 

II,  ii,  18V  (p.  211).     A  beates  him  into  route;  B  misprints  beares. 

n,  ii,  216  (p.  212).  A  My  Lor.  Norris;  B  My  Lord  Norris.  P. 
follows  B ;  but  both  S.  and  Ph.  print  Mylor.  I  prefer  My  Lor'  (cf.  in,  ii, 
55,  p.  217  where  this  form  appears  in  A). 

II,  ii,  220 — 223  (p.  212).  The  punctuation  of  this  passage  in  the 
Qq. — accurately  reproduced  by  P. — is  rather  confusing.  I  take  lines 
221 — 222  to  be  parenthetical  and  inclose  them  accordingly;  on  any 
sudden  = '  upon  any  sudden  call ' ;  there  should  be  a  comma  after  ground ; 
and  As  ready  (1.  223)  goes  back  to  the  phrase  in  command  (1.  220). 

in,  i,  8  (p.  213).     Qq.  Asterisims;  P.  silently  corrects  to  Asterisms. 

in,  ii,  6  (p.  216).  Qq.  Thats  sought.  S.  and  Ph.  alter  to  fought,  which 
is  manifestly  wrong. 

in,  ii,  68  (p.  218).     Qq.  stopt.     P.  misprints  stept. 

in,  ii,  84  (p.  218).     A  smoke]  B  misprints  smokt. 

in,  ii,  90  (p.  218).  Qq.  What  had  his  armes  beene  without  my  arme. 
S.  and  Ph.  emend  his  armies,  a  tempting  alteration,  but  not,  I  think, 
necessary. 

in,  ii,  113  (p.  219).  All'Qq.  have  the  misprint  prefect.  S.  corrects 
to  perfect. 

in,  ii,  121  (p.  219).  Qq.  the  purfle  rare.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  Qq., 
Ph.  glossing  purfle  as  'adornment.'  Specifically  'purfle'  means  'a 
decorated,  or  embroidered  border,'  and  I  do  not  think  this  gives  any 
sense  here.  It  could  hardly  be  applied  to  the  frame  of  a  picture,  even 
if  the  picture  on  which  the  painter  is  engaged  in  this  scene  had  a  frame. 
And  it  is  not  the  frame  but  the  portrait  which  the  Savoyards  are 
flattering.  I  therefore  propose  to  read  profile. 

in,  ii,  194  (p.  221).     In  the  stage  direction  after  this  line  Qq.  have 


48     Text  of  Chapman  s  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

Soisson  for  Soissons.    So  also  throughout  both  plays,  except  in  the  stage 
direction  at  the  beginning  of  Tragedy,  act  V. 

in,  ii,  196  (p.  221).     Qq.  our  streame;  P.  misprints  over  streame. 

ill,  ii,  201  (p.  221).  Qq.  have  a  comma  after  My  Lord.  S.  and  Ph. 
delete  it,  making  My  Lord  agree  with  the  following  words.  But  I  think 
it  is  plain  that  it  is  addressed  to  Byron,  to  whom  Savoy  now  speaks 
aloud,  introducing,  as  it  were,  Nemours  and  Soissons.  I  therefore 
follow  the  old  punctuation. 

in,  ii,  214  (p.  222).  A  And  we  will  turne  these  torrents,  hence.  The 
King.  Exit  Laffi.  B  And  we  will  turne  these  torrents,  hence.  En. 
the  King.  Ex.  Laf.  In  A  the  words,  The  King,  are  in  italics  and  are 
immediately  followed  by  the  stage  direction  Exit  Laffi.  Evidently  the 
proof-reader  of  B  took  them  to  be  part  of  the  stage  direction,  and 
wishing  to  make  this  clear,  he  inserted  the  word  En.  for  Enter.  And 
he  did  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  change  spoiled  the  metre,  and 
was  quite  unnecessary,  for  the  next  line  in  both  Qq.  has  the  stage 
direction  Enter  Henry,  etc.  This  gross  blunder  has  been  followed  by 
P.,  S.  and  Ph.  The  two  latter  make  matters  worse  by  deleting  the 
comma  after  torrents.  Any  one  who  examines  the  first  Quarto  will  see 
at  a  glance  that  the  true  reading  is :  And  we  will  turn  these  torrents. 
Hence  !  The  King  I  Byron  wishes  to  get  the  obnoxious  La  Fin  away 
before  the  King  enters. 

in,  ii,  218  (p.  222).  In  A  the  final  s  in  houses  is  blotted  out;  B 
gives  houses  which  is  required  by  both  sense  and  metre. 

in,  ii,  224  (p.  222).  Qq.  Of  f email  mischiefs.  So  P.,  S.  and  Ph. 
Ph.  glosses  '  Female,  mischief  brought  on  by  the  Fates.'  This  seems  to 
me  a  rather  wild  guess.  I  take  /email  to  be  a  misprint  for  feral,  i.e., 
deadly.  Practically  the  same  misprint  occurs  in  another  play  by 
Chapman,  The  Gentleman  Usher,  n,  i,  286  (P.  vol.  I,  p.  279),  where 
for  female  we  should  read  feral  with  the  sense  '  wild,  savage,'  referring 
to  the  beast-like  figure  of  the  Sylvan1. 

in,  ii,  254  (p.  223).     A  and  led  it  by  a  rule ;  B  misprints  let. 

in,  ii,  256  (p.  223).  Qq.  his  head  is  napt  with  baies.  The  sense  is 
plain — the  poet's  head  is  crowned  with  bays — but  this  seems  a  peculiar 
use  of  the  word  napt.  I  can  find  no  exact  parallel  to  it  in  the  N.  E.  D., 
but  take  it  to  be  connected  with  the  '  nap '  of  cloth. 

in,  ii,  258  (p.  223).  Qq.  Are  of  the  great  last.  Deighton  (Old 
Dramatists,  1895)  proposes  to  read  blast.  I  do  not  understand  what 

1  This  emendation  was  suggested  to  me  by  Dr  Bradley  too  late  to  be  included  in  my 
edition  of  The  Gentleman  Usher  in  the  Belles  Lettres  Series. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  49 

meaning  he  attaches  to  this.  Last  has  here  the  sense  of  'model,' 
'  pattern ' ;  the  poet's  feet  are  said  to  be  of  the  great,  i.e.,  the  heavenly, 
pattern. 

in,  ii,  259  (p.  223).     Qq.  puft  with.     P.  misprints  wirh. 

m,  ii,  260  (p.  223).  Qq.  Full  merit,  eas'd,  those  passions.  Deighton 
suggests  caus'd,  a  tempting  emendation.  But  I  believe  eas'd  in  the 
sense  of  '  gave  ease  to,'  '  gave  vent  to,'  may  be  retained.  The  punctua- 
tion of  the  Qq.  is,  of  course,  quite  wrong. 

in,  ii,  269  (p.  223).     A  treading  on  their  noises ;  B  misprints  noses. 

in,  ii,  284  (p.  224).  In  the  stage  direction  after  this  line  Qq.  have 
Exit  Hen.  &  Sau.  But  Savoy,  I  think,  must  have  left  the  stage  after 
1.  209  (p.  222)  where  the  stage  direction  Exit,  manet  Byr :  (B  Byron) 
Laffin,  must  mean  Exeunt  all  but  Byron  and  La  Fin.  I  therefore  alter 
the  direction  here  to  exit  Henry  [with  Lords]  i.e.  Epernon,  Vitry,  Janin. 
Possibly  Chapman  wrote  Hen.  cum  suis  which  was  misprinted  &  Sau. 

ill,  ii,  291  (p.  224).  A  fayning  I  am  sent ;  B  misprints  saying 
I  am  etc. 

Ill,  iii,  13  (p.  224).     A  in  that  imitation.     B  misprints  intimation. 

in,  iii,  64  (p.  226).  Qq.  What  safely  thou  must  utter.  S.  and  Ph. 
alter  to  mays't,  which  is  a  very  plausible  emendation.  But  I  think 
must  should  be  retained.  Byron  means  that  La  Brosse  must  speak  the 
secret  if  it  is  to  be  discovered  with  safety.'  If  he  will  not  speak,  Byron 
will  knock  out  his  brains  and  search  for  the  secret  in  them  (11.  62,  63). 

in,  iii,  84  (p.  227).  Qq.  Remedy  of  pity.  The  text  seems  to  me 
certainly  corrupt  here,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  hit  upon  an  emen- 
dation. Mr  Daniel  suggests  Thou  remedy  of  pity,  i.e.,  Thou  reason  for 
discarding  all  pity.  This  hardly  seems  satisfactory. 

ill,  iii,  124  (p.  228).  Qq.  More  then  I  use,  that  my  weake  braine  will 
beare.  I  suggest  reading  than  for  that.  I  am  not  sure  that  the  emenda- 
tion is  absolutely  necessary,  but  it  makes  the  passage  much  clearer,  and 
that  for  than  is  a  common  misprint. 

in,  iii,  145  (p.  228).  After  this  line  Qq.  have  Exit.  Apparently 
Byron  goes  out  leaving  La  Brosse  prostrate,  in  which  case  a  traverse 
must  have  been  drawn  to  allow  him  to  rise  and  depart  unseen.  This 
is  one  of  several  instances  in  these  plays  that  suggest  the  use  of  a 
curtain  capable  of  concealing  some  part  of  the  stage.  See  note  on 
last  line  of  Byron's  Tragedy. 

iv,  i.  The  fourth  act  has  been,  as  Fleay  pointed  out  (Chronicle 
English  Drama,  vol.  I,  p.  63),  very  roughly  handled  by  the  censor.  It 
consists  at  present  of  222|  lines,  a  long  dialogue  between  D'Aumont  and 

U.  L.   R.  IV.  4 


50    Text  of  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

Crequi  as  to  Biron's  famous  visit  to  the  Court  of  Elizabeth.  It  is,  of 
course,  incredible  that  this  should  have  been  the  original  form  of  the  act. 
We  must,  I  think,  accept  Fleay's  view  that  in  the  original,  Elizabeth 
herself  appeared  on  the  stage  and  spoke  the  words  that  are  in  the  present 
version  reported  as  hers.  Whether  the  very  striking  scene  in  which 
Elizabeth  pointed  out  the  mouldering  heads  of  Essex  and  other  traitors 
to  Biron  and  sent  a  warning  to  her  brother  of  France  appeared  in  the 
original  form  of  the  play,  as  Koeppel  thinks  (Quellen  und  Forschungen, 
LXXXII,  p.  25,  1897),  seems  to  me  doubtful.  It  is  told  at  full  length  by 
Matthieu  (Histoire  de  France,  tome  2,  pp.  47  a — 49  a)  but  does  not 
appear  in  Chapman's  immediate  source,  Grimeston's  General  Inventory. 
Grimeston  cuts  the  visit  of  Biron  to  Elizabeth  rather  short  and  goes  on 
at  once  to  the  birth  of  the  Dauphin  (pp.  945,  946,  ed.  1607).  Unless, 
therefore,  Chapman  consulted  the  French  original,  a  supposition  for 
which  we  have  no  proof,  it  seems  unlikely  that  the  play  once  contained 
a  scene  which  would  have  shocked  not  only  the  sensibilities  of  the 
censor,  but  even,  one  fancies,  the  poet's  as  well,  whose  patron  the  dead 
Earl  of  Essex  had  been1. 

iv,  i,  25  (p.  230).  Qq.  And  we  had  thought  that  he,  etc.  I  have 
ventured,  on  the  authority  of  the  sources,  to  introduce  the  word  not 
after  had  into  this  line.  It  is  plain  from  the  context  that  a  negative 
sentence  is  wanted,  and  Grimeston  (p.  945)  from  whom  Chapman  is 
borrowing  freely  here  has :  '  That  she  could  not  say  that  a  courage 
which  feared  nothing  but  the  falling  of  the  pillars  of  Heaven,  should 
fear  the  Sea,  or  not  trust  unto  it  for  a  passage  of  seven  or  eight  hours.' 
Matthieu  (vol.  II,  p.  46)  also  has  the  negative :  '  Qu'elle  n'osoit  pas  dire 
qu'un  courage,'  etc. 

iv,  i,  38  (p.  230).     A  A  nd  led  in  nature ;  B  misprints  let. 

iv,  i,  40,  41  (p.  230).  Qq.  for  that  Christall  Sheds  with  his  light  his 
hardnesse  etc.  The  use  of  Christall  in  this  passage  seems  to  me  peculiar; 
and  there  is  nothing  in  the  sources  to  explain  it.  I  thought  at  one 
time  of  proposing  to  read  Christ,  on  the  supposition  that  Chapman  had 
heard  some  report  of  the  Queen's  speech  in  which  she  was  represented 
as  saying  that  Christ  had  defended  as  well  as  enlightened  her  land. 
But  this  seems  somewhat  daring,  and  it  is  probably  better  to  read 
crystal  and  interpret  in  the  sense  of  the  crystalline  sphere,  or  Heaven ; 
cf.  v,  i,  130  (p.  239)  where  it  has  something  of  the  same  sense. 

iv,  i,  112  (p.  232).     A  royaltie:  B  misprints  royally. 

1  Chapman  had  dedicated  his  first  efforts  at  a  translation  of  the  Iliad  (Seaven  Bookes 
of  the  Iliades  and  Achilles  Shield,  both  1598)  to  Essex. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  51 

iv,  i,  156  (p.  233).     A  Crequie :  B  Cerquie.    MS.  corrects  to  Crequie. 

iv,  i,  184  (p.  234).     Kfill;  B  misprints  fiili. 

IV,  i,  213  (p.  235).     A  misprints  maver :  B  correctly  waver. 

iv,  i,  216  (p.  235).  A  overrules;  B  over-rule,  perhaps  an  alteration 
of  the  proof-reader  to  make  the  verb  agree  with  its  supposed  subject, 
starr es.  The  true  subject  is  whom. 

IV,  i,  223  (p.  235).     The  mutilated  act  breaks  off  in  the  middle  of 
this  line.     It  is  interesting  to  note  that  from  about  1.  58  Chapman,  who 
so  far  has  been  paraphrasing  Grimeston,  departs  entirely  from  this  source. 
Yet  the  speeches  of  Byron  (11.  60—100, 106—121)  and  of  the  Councillor 
(11.  164 — 169,  174 — 213)  have  every  air  of  being  versified  from  reports 
of  the  actual  speeches.     Some  contemporary  account  of  Biron's  visit  to 
Queen  Elizabeth  may  yet  be  found  as  a  source  of  these  lines. 

v,  i,  13  (p.  235).  Qq.  in  the  fresh  meate.  Brereton  (Modern  Language 
Review,  Oct.  1907,  p.  60)  suggests  mead.  This  is  very  plausible,  and 
should  perhaps  be  taken  into  the  text.  Yet  meat  may  be  retained, 
I  think,  in  the  now  obsolete  sense  of  '  meal,'  '  repast.' 

v,  i,  37 — 39  (p.  236).  D'Auvergne's  speeches  in  these  lines  are 
assigned  in  B  to  D'Aum.,  a  mere  misprint. 

v,  i,  136  (p.  239).  A  Then  his  kind  thoughts ;  B  misprints  then  this 
kind  thoughts. 

v,  ii,  5  (p.  240).  There  is  an  interesting  variation  in  the  Qq.  in  this 
line.  One  of  the  Brit.  Mus.  copies  (C.  30.  e.  2)  reads  So  long  as  as  such 
as  he  which  P.  gives  as  the  1608  reading  in  a  footnote.  All  copies  of  B 
that  I  have  seen  print  the  line:  So  long  as  idle  and  rediculous  King 
(corrected  by  MS.  to  Kings).  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  latter  is 
the  true  reading,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  appears  in  at  least  two 
copies  of  the  first  quarto,  the  Malone  copy  and  Brit.  Mus.,  C.  12.  g.  5. 
Evidently  it  was  struck  out  as  the  first  edition  was  going  through  the 
press  by  a  proof-reader  who  had  the  fear  of  the  censor  before  his  eyes, 
and  was  restored,  perhaps  by  the  poet  himself,  in  the  second  edition. 

V,  ii,  22  (p.  241).    Qq.  Drowne  the  dead  noises  of  my  sword.    Deighton 
proposes  the  dread  noises.     This  seems  to  me  rather  tame.     I  think 
dead   should  be  kept,  either  in  the  sense  of  'past,'  'extinct,'  or  of 
'deadly.'     I  prefer  the  former. 

V,  ii,  38  (p.  241).  In  the  stage  direction  after  this  line  Qq.  have 
Exeunt  (A  Exieunt).  S.  drops  the  direction  altogether ;  Ph.  retains  it 
but  notes  '  as  they  are  going  out,  Henry  reappears.'  I  think  for  Exeunt 
we  may  safely  read  Exiturus  as  elsewhere  in  Chapman. 

v,  ii,  84  (p.  242).  A  Which  not  another  deluge;  B  carelessly  drops  not. 

4—2 


52     Text  of  Chapman  s  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

v,  ii,  103  (p.  243).  Qq.  /  lockt  it ;  perhaps  we  should  read  locke  to 
correspond  with  the  present  tense  presse  in  1.  105. 

v,  ii,  110  (p.  243).     A  flattery ;  B  misprints  flatteay. 

V,  ii,  115  (p.  243).  The  Malone  copy  misprints  Acaron  for  Alcaron 
as  in  other  Qq. 

v,  ii,  116  (p.  243).  The  stage  direction  Enter  Savoy  with  three 
ladies  occurs  in  the  Qq.  after  1.  110  in  connection  with  Enter  Epernon, 
etc.  (Qq.  Esp:).  As  often  in  old  texts  the  entrance  is  set  too  early. 

V,  ii,  154  (p.  244).     A  I  should  then  have ;  B  omits  then. 

v,  ii,  155  (p.  244).     A  long  age.     A!  misprints  gae,  A2  and  B  correct. 

v,  ii,  179  (p.  245).     A  treasury;  B  misprints  treasure. 

V,  ii,  197  (p.  246).     A  articles;  B  articlesl. 

V,  ii,  210  (p.  246).     A  care ;  B  misprints  eare,  corrected  by  MS. 

V,  ii,  254  (p.  247).  A  most  absolute;  B  absolutist,  apparently  a 
change  by  the  compositor  to  save  space. 


BYRON'S  TRAGEDY. 
The  list  of  Dramatis  Personae  was  first  printed  by  Ph. 

I,  i,  37  (p.  252).     A  misprints  beaveries ;  B  correctly  braveries. 

I,  i,  123  (p.  254).  A  overmacht;  B  overmatcht.  S.  and  Ph.  emend 
overwatched,  i.e.  worn  out  with  watching.  But  we  had  better,  I  think, 
keep  over-matcht  in  the  sense  of '  beaten,'  and  so  '  worn  out.' 

i,  i,  124.  Qq.  When  guilty  [A  gultie],  made  Noblesse,  feed  on 
noblesse.  The  line  is  evidently  corrupt.  S.  reads  :  When  guilty  mad 
noblesse,  feed  on  noblesse.  Ph.  reads:  When  guilty,  made  noblesse  feed 
on  noblesse.  Neither  of  these  seems  to  me  intelligible.  Deighton  sug- 
gests :  When  guilty  mad  noblesse  fed  on  noblesse.  Mr  Daniel :  When 
guilt-made  noblesse  fed  on  noblesse.  Of  these  two  I  should  prefer  the 
former.  But  Chapman  almost  invariably  accents  ndblesse,  and  I  am 
inclined  to  think  that  a  word  has  simply  dropped  out  of  the  line  after 
guilty.  I  suggest,  with  some  diffidence,  lust,  i.e.  '  lust  of  power,' 
'  ambition,'  which  was  certainly  the  cause  why  noblesse  fed  on  noblesse 
in  the  civil  wars  of  France. 

I,  i,  141  (p.  255).  Qq.  Let  him  by  vertue,  quite  out  of  from  fortune. 
S.  emends  quite  cut  off,  etc.,  a  very  happy  correction  which  is  corroborated 
by  a  parallel  passage  in  Caesar  and  Pompey  (n,  iv,  134 — 140.  P.  vol.  in, 
p.  155). 

i,  ii,  4  (p.  255).     A  misprints  neclected ;  B  neglected. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  53 

I,  ii,  20  (p.  256).     A  his  fixed  place ;  B  misprints  her. 

i,  ii,  22  (p.  256).     A  distinguish^ ;  B  misprints  destinguish. 

I,  ii,  38  (p.  256).  Qq.  how  short  of  this  is  my.  MS.  proposes  his  for 
this,  a  rather  plausible  suggestion. 

I,  ii,  45  (p.  256).  Qq.  more  then  humaine  winde.  Deighton  suggests 
mind  for  wind,  and  in  v,  iv,  71  (p.  314,  third  line  from  bottom),  this 
common  misprint  (wind  for  mind)  certainly  occurs.  But  I  think  that 
in  the  present  passage  wind,  i.e.  '  spirit,'  '  temper,'  may  be  retained ;  cf. 
the  phrase  give  ayre  in  1.  44. 

I,  ii,  57  (p.  257).  Qq.  ravish ;  and  my  soule.  MS.  notes  in  margin 
mee,  probably  suggesting  the  reading  ravish  me.  But  this  seems  un- 
called for. 

I,  ii,  67  (p.  257).  A  the  onely  Cyment ;  B  misprints  Clyment,  which 
MS.  corrects. 

I,  iii,  32  (p.  259).     A  Justice ;  B  misprints  Justic,  which  MS.  corrects. 

I,  iii,  55  (p.  260).     A  levies ;  B  misprints  leaves,  which  MS.  corrects. 

I,  iii,  73  (p.  260).  Qq.  Which  are  not  those  that  must  conclude  against 
(B  'gainst)  him.  Here  the  source,  Grimeston,  enables  us  to  restore  the 
true  reading.  On  p.  9631  Grimeston  has:  'Of  many  papers... they  made 
choise  of  27  peeces:  which  were  not  those  which  concluded  most  against 
the  Duke  of  Biron,  but  which  made  mention  onely  of  him,'  etc.  I  think 
it  is  plain  that  must  of  the  Qq.  is  a  me.re  misprint  for  most.  I  prefer 
A  against  to  B  'gainst. 

I,  iii,  102  (p.  261).     There  is  no  break  in  the  Qq.  after  this  line, 
which  is  at  once  followed  by  the  direction  Enter  Esper.  Soisson,  Vitry, 
Pralin,  etc. ;  but  four  pages  further  on  [sig.  L  verso,  K  4  verso  in  B] 
we  find  Finis  Actus  Secundi,  although  no  note  of  the  beginning  of  the 
second  act  has  been  given.     I  think  it  is  clear  that  these  four  pages  of 
the  Qq.  contain  all  that  is  left  of  the  censored  second  act,  from  which 
the  scene  that  offended  the  ^French  ambassador  has  been  ruthlessly 
shorn   away.     The   masque   that   remains   has   no  purpose  except  to 
represent  the  reconciliation  between  Henry's  queen  and  his  mistress. 

II,  26  (p.  262).     A  misprints  saftety ;  B  corrects. 

n,  65  (p.  263).  Qq.  play  the  prease ;  A2  looks  rather  like  pray  with 
a  blot  over  the  r ;  MS.  corrects  pray.  This  is  certainly  correct,  yet  S. 
prints  play  the  press,  and  Ph.  play ;  the  press  which  is  unintelligible. 

II,  101-2  (p.  264).     A  she  likes  it ;  B  misprints  like.     MS.  corrects. 

n,  102  (p.  264).  A  the  vertue ;  B  vertue.  The  context  shows,  I  think, 
that  B  gives  the  correct  reading. 

1  In  the  1607  edition  this  page  is  wrongly  numbered  941. 


54    Text  of  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

ii,  125-6  (p.  265).  B  carelessly  drops  the  words,  and  then  attend 
Your  heighnes  will. 

in,  i,  57  (p.  267).  The  Qq.  do  not  indicate  the  entry  of  La  Brunei 
after  this  line,  but  simply  assign  the  next  speech,  11.  58-9,  to  La  Brun. 
So  also  after  1.  165  (p.  270)  I  have  supplied  an  exit  for  La  Brunei  in 
order  to  prepare  for  his  entrance  marked  by  the  Qq.  after  1.  230 
(p.  272). 

in,  i,  130  (p.  269).  Qq.  every  Pursivant  brings.  P.  misprints  bring; 
S.  and  Ph.  correct. 

in,  i,  148-9  (p.  270).  Qq.  not  the  Syrian  starre  That  in  the  Lyons 
mouth  undaunted  shines.  So  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  But  read  Sirian  star  and 
Lions  month.  The  reference,  as  the  next  lines  show,  is  to  the  heliacal 
rising  of  Sirius  in  July,  the  Lion's  month.  The  emendation  proposed 
gives  a  perfect  sense  to  a  passage  which  was  unintelligible  before. 

ill,  i,  195  (p.  271).  A  That  hath  but  two  staires;  B  two  starres. 
Either  reading  will  make  sense.  With  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  I  follow  A. 

in,  i,  206  (p.  271).  Qq.  by  laying  out.  So  S.  and  Ph.  I  do  not 
quite  understand  the  sense,  and  fancy  that  there  may  be  some  corrup- 
tion, but  I  am  not  prepared  to  make  an  emendation.  Flying  out  would 
make  sense,  but  seems  to  me  somewhat  daring. 

lii>  i,  209  (p.  271).  A  Not  to  be  quencht,  nor  lessend;  B  inserts  no 
before  nor.  This  sounds  like  the  interpolation  of  an  actor,  spoiling  the 
rhythm  to  secure  greater  emphasis. 

in,  i,  235-7  (p.  272).     Qq.  print  these  lines  as  prose. 

in,  i,  239  (p.  272).     A  all  scruple;  B  scruiples.     I  prefer  A. 

in,  ii,  43  (p.  274).  A  Province  by  Province ;  B  misprints  the  second 
Provice.  MS.  corrects. 

ill,  ii,  56  (p.  274).  Before  this  line  A  needlessly  repeats  the  name 
of  the  speaker,  Hen.  B  omits.  In  the  stage  direction  after  this  line 
Qq.  include  the  word  brother.  This  character  is  perhaps  meant  to 
represent  one  of  Biron's  brothers-in-law;  he  takes  no  part  in  the 
play. 

in,  ii,  60  (p.  275).  A  Jelouse  of  mine  honor ;  B  misprints  Jealousie. 
MS.  corrects. 

in,  ii,  69  (p.  275).  Qq.  Be  what  port  it  will ;  MS.  inserts  it  after  Be, 
a  rather  tempting  correction.  But  as  Chapman  often  omits  the  subject 
when  it  may  be  understood  from  the  context,  I  have  not  thought  it 
necessary  to  insert  it. 

in,  ii,  88 — 90  (p.  275).  Qq.  print  these  three  lines  as  two ;  Resolving 
...in,  And  had... son. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  55 

in,  ii,  111  (p.  276).  A  an  open  expedition;  B  exhebition.  Either 
reading  will  make  sense,  but  I  prefer  to  follow  A. 

in,  ii,  112  (p.  276).     A  In  which;  B  misprints  /  which. 

in,  ii,  113  (p.  276).  Qq.  fouly  foyld.  P  misprints  foyld,  and  S.  and 
Ph.  read  soil'd.  But  foil'd,  in  one  of  its  meanings,  '  trampled  down,' 
'  defeated,'  or  '  defiled,'  is  certainly  the  true  reading. 

in,  ii,  116  (p.  276).     A  as  perfect  roundnes;  B  misprints  a  perfect. 

III,  ii,  129  (p.  277).     A  lie  tell  you  as  your  friend;  B  reads  as  a 
friend.     P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B.     I  prefer  to  retain  the  reading  of  A. 

IV,  i  (p.  277).     In  the  stage  direction  at  the  beginning  of  this  scene 
B  prefixes  Enter  the  Duke  of  to  A's  Byron,  D'Avuergne. 

IV,  i,  2  (p.  277).     A  /  meane ;  B  misprints  meant.     MS.  corrects. 

IV,  i,  3  (p.  277).  A  much  better  themselves  :  B  correctly  inserts  then 
after  better. 

IV,  i,  31  (p.  278).     A  their  diverted  eares ;  B  misprints  delivered. 

iv,  i,  33  (p.  278).     A  must  like ;  B  most  like,  probably  a  misprint. 

iv,  i,  46  (p.  279).     A  Bat  he  is  most  loth ;  B  carelessly  omits  most. 

iv,  i,  66  (p.  279).     A.  fare  you  wel ;  B  carelessly  drops  you. 

iv,  i,  68-69  (p.  279).  Qq.  print  the  words  from  They  keepe  to  King 
as  one  line. 

iv,  i,  76  (p.  279).  A  losse  to  lose ;  B  misprints  losse,  to  losse.  MS. 
emends  the  second  losse  to  loose,  a  variant  of  lose. 

IV,  i,  80-84  (p.  280).  The  compositor  of  this  passage  in  B  seems 
to  have  been  more  than  usually  careless.  He  misprints  n're  for  nere, 
1.  80 ;  keepe  for  kept,  1.  82  ;  spects  for  aspects,  1.  83  ;  and  Barke  for  Brake, 
1.  84. 

iv,  i,  101  (p.  280).  Qq.  He  wills  us  to  retire.  P.  misprints  He  will 
us,  a  mistake  followed  by  S.  and  Ph. 

IV,  i,  114  (p.  281).  Qq.  the  wilde  ducke.  This  line  is  a  clear  proof, 
I  think,  that  Chapman  followed  the  English  translation  (Grimeston)  not 
the  French  original  (Matthieu).  Grimeston,  p.  966J1,  says:  'A  Ducke 
came  into  his  cabinet,  etc.';  but  Matthieu  (vol.  n,  p.  123)  has:  'un 
oyseau  qu'on  appelle  Due,  etc.'  Now  'Due'  is  a  species  of  owl.  If 
Chapman  had  read  the  French  and  understood  its  meaning,  he  would 
hardly  have  substituted  the  wild  duck,  thus  anticipating  Ibsen,  for  the 
conventional  bird  of  ill  omen,  the  owl. 

iv,  i,  125  (p.  281).     Kfel-mad;  B  correctly  fell  mad. 

iv,  i,  139  (p.  282).     Qq.  That  die.     P.  misprints  hie. 

1  In  the  1607  edition  this  page  is  wrongly  numbered  944. 


56     Text  of  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

IV,  i,  152  (p.  282).  A  my  apprehendor;  B  misprints  apprehennor. 
MS.  corrects. 

iv,  i,  153  (p.  282).  The  stage  direction  Exeunt  is  wanting  after  this 
line,  but  it  is  clear  that  Byron  and  his  friends  are  not  on  the  stage  in 
the  following  scene. 

iv,  ii,  25  (p.  283).  A  resolution,  what  were  fit;  B  that  were  fit.  P., 
S.  and  Ph.  follow  A;  but  I  think  B  is  the  better  reading.  A  is  probably 
a  misprint  due  to  some  contraction  in  the  MS. 

iv,  ii,  34  (p.  283).     A  manadge ;  B  misprints  manadage. 

iv,  ii,  61  (p.  284).     A  and  on  D'Avuergne ;  B  omits  on. 

iv,  ii,  69  (p.  284).     A  Passions ;  B  misprints  Pssiaons. 

iv,  ii,  85  (p.  284).  I  have  inserted  the  name,  Montigny,  in  the  stage 
direction  here  to  prepare  for  his  speech,  11.  156 — 162  (p.  287). 

iv,  ii,  90  (p.  285).  The  direction  Exit  D'Auvergne  is  wanting  in  the 
Qq.  I  have  supplied  it  here  to  prepare  for  his  re-entrance  after  1.  172 
(p.  287). 

IV,  ii,  110  (p.  285).  Qq.  lessons  of  mortallitie;  MS.  apparently  tries 
to  alter  to  moralitie  and  notes  in  margin :  '  A  morall  man,  A  civill 
man.'  S.  and  Ph.  read  morality,  an  emendation  which  Deighton  also 
suggests.  It  is  certainly  a  tempting  conjecture,  and  possibly  correct. 
Yet  I  think  mortality  in  the  sense  of '  human  life,' '  human  nature,'  may 
be  retained. 

iv,  ii,  119  (p.  286).  A  the  worthy  King  of  Hearts',  B  alters  to  that 
worthy. 

iv,  ii,  128  (p.  286).  A  as  before;  B  as  be  before.  MS.  adds  in 
margin  they  did. 

iv,  ii,  139  (p.  286).  Qq.  He  sought  for  gold,  and  Empire.  MS.  notes 
in  margin  :  Hee  fought  [for]  gold,  not  em[pire].  The  letters  enclosed  in 
brackets  have  been  cut  off  when  this  copy  of  Q2  was  rebound. 

iv,  ii,  155  (p.  287).  Qq.  the  magnanimity.  MS.  in  margin  this 
mag[nani]mitye.  Byron's  speech  is  interrupted  by  Montigny ;  I  there- 
fore place  a  dash  instead  of  the  period  of  the  Qq.  at  the  close  of  this  line. 

iv,  ii,  170-171  (p.  287).  Qq.  have  unmov'd  and  beloved  as  the  last 
words  of  these  lines.  I  think  it  is  plain  that  a  rhyme  is  intended  and 
therefore  print  unmov'd  and  belov'd. 

iv,  ii,  177  (p.  287).     Qq.  on  Strong  Barre.     MS.  corrects  one. 

iv,  ii,  183  (p.  288).  Qq.  Trust  that  deceives  our  selves  in  treachery. 
S.  emends  is,  which  is,  no  doubt,  correct. 

iv,  ii,  184  (p.  288).     A  an  open  lie.     B  misprints  and  open  lye. 

IV,  ii,  194  (p.  288).     Qq.  All  this... is  misery.     MS.  notes  in  margin 


T.    M.    PAREOTT  57 

Mysterye,  anticipating  S.'s  and  Deighton's  mystery.  The  context,  cf. 
1.  195,  shows,  I  think,  that  mystery  is  the  true  reading.  I  have  noted 
the  misprint  misery  for  mystery  in  Fletcher's  Valentinian,  in,  i  (F2, 
p.  368,  2nd  col.).  In  1.  195  I  have  followed  S.  in  putting  a  question 
mark  after  it.  The  Qq.  have  a  semicolon  and  a  comma  respectively. 
In  this  line  A  misprints  enouge ;  B  corrects  enough. 

iv,  ii,  197  (p.  288).  A  has  Exit  after  the  speech  of  Varennes. 
B  drops  it,  and  accordingly  it  does  not  appear  in  P.,  Sh.,  or  Ph. 

iv,  ii,  201  (p.  288).  I  have  inserted  the  stage  direction  Exeunt  all 
but  Byron  and  Henry  in  this  line,  since  it  is  plain  that  the  court  retires 
here  and  leaves  these  two  alone. 

iv,  ii,  227  (p.  289).     A  Aske  life ;  B  misprints  As  life. 

iv,  ii,  256  (p.  290).  Qq.  my  person ;  wich  is  as  free.  MS.  corrects 
person  with  as  free.  This  emendation,  which  I  think  very  happy,  is 
followed  by  S.,  but  Ph.  returns  to  the  reading  of  the  Qq. 

iv,  ii,  258  (p.  290).  A  the  merits  of  your  valors;  B  misprints  or 
your.  MS.  corrects.  P.  follows  B ;  but  S.  and  Ph.  revert  to  A. 

iv,  ii,  263  (p.  290).  A  /  am  asham'd  to  bragge  thus ;  where  envy. 
B  transfers  envy  to  the  beginning  of  the  next  line.  I  have  ventured  to 
introduce  but  before  envy  which  restores  the  metre  and,  I  think,  is  called 
for  by  the  sense. 

IV,  ii,  272  (p.  291).     Qq.  others  honors. ;  P.  misprints  other. 

iv,  ii,  273  (p.  291).  A  A  property ;  B  Properties.  The  reading  of  B 
seems  to  me  better  rhythmically,  but  I  have  preferred,  as  in  all  doubt- 
ful cases,  to  follow  A. 

iv,  ii,  286  (p.  291).  A  And  trample  out ;  B  So,  trample  out.  The 
reading  of  B  makes  no  sense  unless  we  suppose  So  a  misprint  for  To. 
In  any  case  I  would  follow  A.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B. 

iv,  ii,  294  (p.  291).  Qq.  Shooes  ever  overthrow.  After  a  good  deal 
of  hesitation  I  have  ventured  on  the  emendation  shows,  i.e.  pageants, 
taking  overthrow  in  the  intransitive  sense  recorded  in  N.  E.  D.  (OVER- 
THROW f  5).  A.  confusion  between  shoes  and  shows  is  not  uncommon  in 
Elizabethan  spelling.  In  King  John,  II,  i,  144,  Theobald's  emendation 
shows  for"  the  Ff  shooes  is,  I  think,  pretty  generally  accepted.  I  have 
also  noted  in  Middleton's  Family  of  Love,  i,  iii  (sig.  B3  reverse),  showes 
misprinted  for  shoes  (see  Dyce's  note  in  his  edition  of  Middleton,  vol.  n, 
p.  127),  and  in  Greene's  Groatsworth  of  Wit  (p.  129,  Grosart's  edition) 
I  find  shooes  misprinted  for  shows.  Admitting,  then,  the  possibility  of 
a  confusion  between  shooes  and  shows,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  latter  is 
what  Chapman  wrote.  The  homely  figure  'too  big  shoes  upset  their 


58     Text  of  Chapman  s  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

wearer,'  would  not  be  at  all  in  his  '  heightened  style/  and  the  context, 
I  think,  shows  that  an  intransitive  verb  is  required :  '  an  exhalation 
falls,  cannons  burst,  and  pageants  overturn,'  not  '  shoes  upset  their 
wearer.'  I  am  reluctant  to  introduce  emendations  into  the  text  where 
the  original  will  make  sense,  but  I  can  only  say  that  I  feel  fairly 
confident  after  a  long  study  of  Chapman  that  shows  not  shoes  was  what 
he  meant. 

iv,  ii,  307  (p.  292).  Qq.  Are  coullors,  it  mil  beare.  MS.  corrects 
that  will  beare,  which  is  no  doubt  correct.  But  S.  and  Ph.  have  it. 
Deighton  like  MS.  emends  that. 

iv,  ii,  308  (p.  292).  A  to  adverse  affaires;  B  misprints  advise 
affaires. 

iv,  ii,  309  (p.  292).  A  his  state  still  his  best ;  B  corrects  the  second 
his  to  is. 

iv,  ii,  310-311  (p.  292).  For  That,  the  first  word  in  both  these 
lines  in  A,  B  has  As. 

v,  i,  2  (p.  292).     A  That;  B  Which. 

v,  i,  9  (p.  292).     A  And ;  B  For. 

V,  i,  12  (p.  293).     A  as;  B  misprints  at. 

v,  i,  16  (p.  293).     A  lately  levied ;  B  drops  lately. 

v,  i,  38  (p.  293).     A  Till;  B  Untill. 

v,  i,  68  (p.  294).     A  Take ;  B  Have. 

v,  i,  70  (p.  294).     A  lothes ;  B  hates. 

v,  i,  82  (p.  295).  A  feared ;  B  sacred.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B. 
Grimeston  (p.  970)  has  the  phrase  'to  break  the  Javelins  one  after 
another';  Matthieu  (vol.  n,  p.  129  reverse)  'de  rompre  les  javelots  1'un 
apres  1'autre.'  Since  the  epithet  is  original  with  Chapman,  we  must 
choose  between  the  Qq.  I  think  feared  more  likely  to  be  a  misprint 
for  sacred  than  vice  versa,  and  therefore  follow  B. 

v,  i,  88  (p.  295).  A  impartiall ;  B  imperiall.  P.  and  Ph.  follow  B  ; 
S.  follows  A.  I  think  A  should  be  retained. 

v,  i,  91  (p.  295).     A  Duke  Byron ;  B  Duke  of  Byron. 

v,  i,  92  (p.  295).     A  command  it ;  B  drops  it. 

v,  i,  99  (p.  295).  A  evermore  slack ;  B  evermore  make  slacke.  P.  and 
S.  follow  B ;  but  A  seems  to  me  preferable. 

V,  i,  102  (p.  295).     A  merry ;  B  misprints  many. 

V,  i,  112  (p.  296).  Qq.  in  the  best  sort.  So  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  But  the 
passage  seems  to  me  unintelligible.  I  take  best  to  be  a  misprint  for 
lest,  the  usual  spelling  of  least  in  these  Qq.,  and  emend  accordingly,  as 
also  in  1.  115  where  Qq.  have  best. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  59 

v,  i,  116  (p.  296).     A  That;  B  So. 

v,  i,  118  (p.  296).     A  Byrde;  B  misprints  Bryde. 

V,  i,  119  (p.  296).  A  unwares;  B  unawares.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B; 
but  A  gives  a  better  rhythm. 

v,  i,  122  (p.  296).  A  not  out;  B  nor  out.  For  out  Deighton 
suggests  it;  but  out  (i.e.  out  of  the  room)  stands  in  contrast  to  down. 

v,  ii,  15  (p.  297).     A  My  Lord  La  Fin ;  B  Me  Lord.     MS.  corrects. 

v,  ii,  20  (p.  297).     A  Till ;  B  Until. 

v,  ii,  20-22  (p.  297).  A  misprints  Hen.  as  the  name  of  the  speaker, 
although  the  catchword  at  the  bottom  of  the  preceding  page  is  Har. 
B  corrects.  1.  21.  A  sees ;  B  misprints  soes.  MS.  corrects. 

V,  ii,  27  (p.  298).     A  arraignd ;  B  misprints  arignd. 

v,  ii,  60  (p.  298).     A  The  fourth  is ;  B  Fourthly. 

v,  ii,  73  (p.  299).  A  Seurre;  B  Seuerre.  B's  misprint  led  to  the 
reading  Severre  in  S.  and  Ph.  The  proper  name  of  the  town  is  Seurre 
in  the  C6te  d'Or. 

v,  ii,  76,  82,  89,  100  (p.  299).  Before  these  lines  A  has  2.,  3,  4.  and 
5.  respectively.  B  omits  the  numerals. 

v,  ii,  76  (p.  299).     A  treaties ;  B  treaty.     P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B. 

v,  ii,  87  (p.  299).  A  for  him ;  B  from  him.  I  think  B  represents 
the  correction  of  a  proof-reader,  who  thought  him  meant  Savoy.  It 
means  Henry,  and  for  is  correct. 

V,  ii,  117  (p.  300).     A  hyrelings  then;  B  omits  then. 

v,  ii,  122  (p.  300).  A  What  will  you  say  ?  Byr.  I  know  it  cannot  be. 
B  inserts  then  before  say,  and  drops  /  know.  This  looks  like  an  actor's 
change  for  the  sake  of  emphasis. 

v,  ii,  154  (p.  301).  A  Trumpe;  B  badly  blotted,  but  looks  like  a 
cancelled  t  at  the  end  of  the  word.  MS.  adds  t  (Trumpet).  I  follow  A. 

v,  ii,  172  (p.  302).  A  simply  trusted  treason;  B  misprints  simple 
trusted  reason. 

V,  ii,  194  (p.  302).  Qq.  Mindes  must  be  sound.  P.  misprints  found, 
and  is  followed  by  S.  and  Ph. 

v,  ii,  197  (p.  302).  A  desarts;  B  deserts.  P.  misprints  desart. 
S.  and  Ph.  accordingly  desert. 

v,  ii,  201  (p.  302).  A  What  I  have  done ;  B  What  have  I  done.  P.,  S. 
and  Ph.  follow  B ;  but  A  is  plainly  right,  since  the  clause  is  not  interroga- 
tive, but  in  apposition  with  This,  1.  203. 

V,  ii,  231  (p.  303).  Qq.  And  I  were  but  one.  S.  inserts  though  before 
/ ;  but  this  is  not  needed.  The  line  begins  with  the  syncopated  first 
foot. 


60    Text  of  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

v,  ii,  244  (p.  303).  Qq./rora  the  kingdoms.  So  S.  and  Ph.  I  think 
the  is  a  misprint  for  their,  though  it  may  perhaps  be  a  case  of  the  article 
standing  for  the  possessive  pronoun. 

v,  ii,  258  (p.  304).  Qq.  Saturnals.  Deighton  suggests  Saturnalians. 
But  the  form  Saturnals  occurs  in  Jonson,  Pleasure  Reconciled  to  Virtue 
(p.  607,  col.  1,  Gifford's  one  volume  ed.,  1846),  and  may  well  be 
retained. 

v,  iii,  1  (p.  305).  Qq.  give  this  speech  to  Vit.,  an  evident  misprint 
for  Vid[ame]. 

v,  iii,  14  (p.  306).     A  made  my  judges',  B  drops  my. 

v,  iii,  28  (p.  306).  Qq.  Though  we  may.  Deighton  suggests,  metris 
causa,  Although.  But  the  syncopated  first  foot  is  common  in  Chapman. 

v,  iii,  43  (p.  307).  Qq.  to  moisture  hang'd.  S.  emends  chang'd,  which 
is  certainly  right. 

v,  iii,  66  (p.  307).     A  sits  smoothe ;  B  misprints  sets. 

Qq.  engazd;  so  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  I  can  see  no  meaning  in  this,  and 
propose  to  read  englazd,  i.e.  painted  upon. 

v,  iii,  73  (p.  307).  The  stage  direction  Within,  wanting  in  A,  is 
supplied  by  B. 

v,  iii,  102  (p.  308).  Qq.  to  ivhich  I  summon.  MS,  improperly  adds 
you  after  summon. 

v,  iii,  131  (p.  309).  A  has  Flen.  as  the  name  of  the  speaker,  a 
misprint  for  Fleu[ry] ;  B  Fie. 

v,  iii,  135  (p.  309).  A  that  injures  me',  B  and  injures  me.  The 
change  is  due  to  the  fact  that  B  alters  the  position  of  the  parentheses, 
within  which  A  includes  the  words  from  most  to  given,  so  as  to  include 
only  from  most  to  is.  The  alteration  in  B  is  evidently  deliberate,  but 
not  being  sure  that  it  is  the  poet's  own,  I  retain  A. 

v,  iii,  137  (p.  309).     A  restaines ;  B,  correctly,  restraines. 

v,  iii,  154  (p.  310).  A  And  loves  men,  for  his  vices,  nor  for  their 
vertues ;  B  And  loves  men,  for  their  vices,  not  for,  etc.  I  believe  that, 
except  the  misprint  nor  for  not,  A  has  the  better  reading,  and  that 
the  change  in  B  was  made  by  a  proof-reader.  But  P.,  S.,  and  Ph. 
follow  B. 

v,  iii,  160-161  (p.  310).  That  had  then  the  wolf  To  fly  upon  his 
bosom.  I  cannot  quite  see  the  sense  of  this  passage,  and  suspect  some 
corruption.  No  source  for  it  appears  in  Grimeston. 

v,  iii,  181  (p.  311).     A  Tis  but  a;  B  misprints  put;  MS.  corrects. 

v,  iii,  184  (p.  311).  I  supply  the  wanting  stage  direction  Exit 
Byron  after  1.  184. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  61 

v,  iii,  185-6  (p.  311).  Never  saw  I... at  death;  Qq.  make  but  one 
line  of  these  words. 

v,  iii,  210  (p.  311).     A  guilded;  B  misprints  guided. 

v,  iii,  217  (p.  312).  Qq.  render  the  kingdomes  dome.  Deighton's 
emendation  under  for  render  seems  to  me  very  happy,  and  I  have 
incorporated  it  in  the  text,  which,  as  it  stands,  is  unintelligible. 

v,  iii,  226  (p.  312).     A  misprints  Authoriy;  B  correctly  Authority. 

v,  iii,  240  (p.  312).  I  have  supplied  the  Exeunt  after  this  line.  As 
there  is  no  division  into  scenes  in  the  Qq.,  it  is  probable  that  the  five 
characters  on  the  stage  at  this  point  remained  there  through  the  rest  of 
the  act  and  witnessed  the  execution  of  Biron. 

v,  iv,  16  (p.  313).     Qq.  That  can  be  wrought;  P.  misprints  he. 

v,  iv,  23  (p.  313).  Qq.  give  Arch[bishop]  as  the  speaker  of  the 
words  beginning  Good  my  lord.  But  this  does  not  accord  with  the 
stage  direction  a  Bishop  or  two  above,  nor  with  the  facts.  Gamier, 
Bishop  of  Montpellier,  attended  Biron  at  his  death.  I  have  therefore 
altered  Arch,  to  Bishop. 

v,  iv,  39  (p.  314).  Qq.  And  what  sayd  all  you.  Deighton  proposes 
say  you,  but  the  change  does  not  seem  necessary. 

v,  iv,  45  (p.  314).  Qq.  /  bring  a  long  globe  and  a  little  earth. 
This  line  is  manifestly  corrupt,  yet  S.  and  Ph.  retain  it.  Deighton 
proposes  being  a  blown  globe  of  a  little  breath,  which  seems  to  me  too 
daring.  Brereton  (Mod.  Lang.  Review,  Oct.,  1907)  suggests  lone  for 
long.  This  does  not,  to  my  mind,  improve  the  sense  very  much. 
I  venture  the  suggestion  being  a  large  globe  and  a  little  earth,  taking 
globe  in  the  sense  of  the  round  representation  of  the  world.  Byron, 
then,  calls  himself,  in  an  antithesis  quite  in  Chapman's  manner,  at  once 
'  a  large  map  and  a  microcosm.' 

v,  iv,  58  (p.  314).  I  have  supplied  this  speech  of  Vitry's  from 
Grimeston.  In  Qj  the  last  word  on  sig.  Q4  reverse  is  Blancart.  Then 
comes  the  catch wojd  Vit.  (i.e.,  Vibry).  But  the  next  page  begins  Byr. 
Do  they  jlie  me  ?  It  is  plain  that  half  a  line  has  dropped  out.  And 
Grimeston,  p.  988,  gives  the  answer  to  Biron's  request  to  see  La  Force 
and  Blancart,  viz.  '  They  tould  him  they  were  not  in  the  city.'  B  has 
no  indication  of  a  loss  as  the  passage  comes  in  the  middle  of  a  page, 
Q4  reverse. 

v,  iv,  71  (p.  314).  Qq.  When  I  have  lost  my  armes,  my  fame,  my 
winde.  The  last  word  is  of  course  a  misprint  for  minde.  Cunliffe 
(Influence  of  Seneca,  etc.,  p.  48)  pointed  out  that  the  whole  passage 
was  taken  from  Seneca  (Here.  Furens,  1265-8),  and  gave  the  proper 


62     Text  of  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

reading  mind,  corresponding  to  mentem.  Yet  S.  and  Ph.  have  wind, 
and  Brereton  (Lc.,  p.  60)  thinks  that  wind  (i.e.,  'the  imaginative  spirit 
of  a  man ')  should  be  retained. 

v,  iv,  77  (p.  315).     A  yee;  B  you.     P.  and  S.  follow  B. 

on  /      01  K\      A    (depositions     _       .      .         (dispositions 
V,  iv,  88,  89  (p.  315).     A  4    f       .       ;  B  misprints  4  ,.r     .. 

(deposition  (disposition 

MS.  corrects  and  notes  in  margin  by  ye  depositions  and  forgeryes. 

V,  iv,  100  (p.  315).  Qq.  treason  in  a  sentence.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow 
the  Qq.  But  the  word  in  makes  nonsense  of  the  passage,  and  has 
evidently  crept  in  by  mistake.  Grimeston,  p.  986,  reads  'Against 
Charles... accused  of  treason... A  sentence  was  given,  etc.'  I  have 
therefore  dropped  in. 

v,  iv,  136  (p.  316).  Qq.  They  had  bene  three  yeares  since,  amongst 
the  dead.  So  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  But  They  is  unintelligible.  Brereton 
(I.e.,  p.  61)  proposes  to  omit  They  and  take  had  as  equivalent  to  H'ad. 
Grimeston  (p.  988)  has  the  words  '  if  he  would  have  undertaken  it,  the 
King  had  not  beene  living  three  yeares  since.'  I  think  we  may  assume 
that  the  printer  misread  He  (i.e.,  the  King)  and  set  up  They. 

V,  iv,  137  (p.  316).  A  his  safety  in  her  owne ;  B  his  safety  in  his 
owne,  a  mere  misprint. 

v,  iv,  137  (p.  316).  I  insert  the  direction  Exeunt  the  Chancellor  and 
Harlay  after  this  line.  Grimeston,  p.  988,  records  the  departure  of 
these  two  immediately  after  Biron  had  spoken  the  words  in  11.  131-136. 

v,  iv,  149  (p.  317).  A  Make  even  right  with  the  Mountains?;  B  omits 
the.  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  follow  B;  but  I  see  no  reason  for  thinking  the  change 
to  be  an  authorised  one. 

v,  iv,  162  (p.  317).  I  insert  the  stage  directions  He  mounts  the 
scaffold,  and  Enter  the  Hangman  after  this  line. 

v,  iv,  157  (p.  317).  Qq.  like  low  straines.  Sh.  emends  streams  which 
is  no  doubt  correct,  as  the  context  shows. 

v,  iv,  171  (p.  317).  Qq.  give  Arch  as  the  name  of  the  speaker. 
See  note  on  1.  23  supra. 

v,  iv,  178  (p.  318).  A  Thou  seest  I  see  not?  yet  I  speake  as  I  saw. 
B  alters  the  question  mark  to  a  comma.  The  line  is  unintelligible,  but 
is  given,  in  the  A  reading,  by  P.,  S.  and  Ph.  Deighton  suggested 
changing  the  second  /  to  you  ;  Brereton  (I.e.,  p.  61)  would  drop  I. 
Grimeston,  p.  990,  has  '  Thou  seest  that  I  see  nothing,  and  yet  thou 
shewest  mee  as  if  I  did  see  plainely.'  It  is  evident  that  Chapman 
wrote  speaks't  or  speaks,  that  the  compositor  misprinted  it  speake,  and 
that  a  proof-reader  thinking  to  improve  matters  put  in  the  I. 


T.    M.    PARROTT  63 

v,  iv,  200  (p.  318).  A  And  force  the  rest  to  kill  me;  B  carelessly 
drops  kill. 

v,  iv,  215  (p.  319).     Qq.  beneath  the  burthen.     P  misprints  beneaih. 

v,  iv,  227  (p.  319).     A  His  hearty  ills ;  B  misprints  hearts. 

v,  iv,  259  (p.  320).  Qq.  print  this  line  as  two  ending  strike  and 
soule.  It  is  just  possible  that  Chapman  meant  Byron's  speech  to 
terminate  with  the  word  strike,  and  gave  the  last  words  of  the  play  to 
another  speaker.  Grimeston  says  (p.  991)  that  Biron's  head  was  struck 
off  while  he  was  still  speaking.  The  Qq.  contain  no  stage  direction  for 
the  bearing  off  of  Biron's  body,  nor  indeed  for  any  exit  of  the  characters. 
It  seems  as  if  we  had  here  a  clear  instance  of  an  Elizabethan  play 
closing  with  a  tableau  and  of  the  curtain's  falling,  or  rather  being 
drawn,  upon  a  group  of  actors  standing  on  the  stage.  Mr  Archer  in  his 
recent  admirable  article1  on  the  Elizabethan  stage  has  stated  that  only 
a  few,  and  these  perhaps  doubtful,  instances  of  such  final  tableaux  occur 
in  Elizabethan  drama.  I  am  inclined  bo  think  that  if  we  examined  the 
plays  produced  at  the  so-called  private  theatres,  where  the  arrangement 
of  the  stage  seems  to  have  differed  somewhat  from  the  common  type 
of  the  public  theatre,  we  should  find  a  number  of  such  cases.  In 
Chapman  for  example  All  Fools  (the  quarto  represents  the  production 
of  the  play  at  Blackfriars)  closes  with  practically  all  the  figures  of  the 
play  upon  the  stage,  and  with  no  direction  for  their  leaving  it.  The 
Gentleman  Usher  (probably  also  a  Blackfriars  play)  ends  in  the  same 
way.  The  first  quarto  of  Bussy  (1607)  which  represents  the  original 
performance  of  the  play  by  Paul's  Boys,  in  a  private  theatre,  apparently 
closes  with  the  figure  of  the  Umbra  standing  over  the  fallen  corpse  of 
Bussy,  a  striking  instance  of  a  tableau.  Both  the  Byron  plays  lack 
a  final  exeunt  for  the  characters  on  the  stage,  and  these  plays  were 
produced  at  the  Blackfriars.  Caesar  and  Pompey  appears  to  end  with 
a  tableau  of  the  surviving  actors  about  the  body  of  Cato,  but  we  know 
nothing  as  to  the  production  of  this  play.  That  it  was  meant  for  the 
stage,  in  spite  of  Chapman's  disclaimer  in  the  Dedication,  we  may  be 
very  sure  from  the  elaborate  stage  directions  for  exits  and  entrances, 
for  costuming,  etc.  I  do  not  believe  Chapman  had  any  hand  in 
Alphonsus  Emperor  of  Germany;  but  this  play,  performed  at  Black- 
friars, certainly  closes  with  a  corpse  on  the  stage,  and  a  grouping  of 
the  surviving  actors  around  the  new  Emperor. 

In  the  case  of  Byron's  Tragedy  in  particular,  it  seems  to  me  evident 
that  the  play  closed  with  a  tableau,  or  perhaps  a  'semi-tableau,'  a 
1  Quarterly  Revieic,  April,  1908,  p.  454. 


64     Text  of  Chapman  s  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Byron 

curtain  being  drawn  to  conceal  Byron  kneeling  on  the  scaffold  and  the 
hangman  standing  over  him  with  raised  axe.  The  other  characters 
may  have  been  left  outside  the  curtain  and  gone  off  in  a  funeral 
procession.  The  question  is  where  the  scaffold  was  placed  upon  the 
Blackfriars  stage.  It  is  rather  difficult  for  me  to  picture  a  raised 
scaffold  in  the  '  alcove '  or  '  rear  stage '  which  is  the  only  part  of  the 
lower  stage  that  Mr  Archer  will  allow  to  be  curtained  off.  Possibly  it 
was  set  upon  the  balcony,  which  we  know  could  be  cut  off  by  a  curtain, 
but  in  this  case  there  must  have  been  some  device  enabling  Byron  to 
ascend  to  the  balcony  from  the  front  stage,  and  I  am  not  aware  of  any 
proof  that  such  a  device  existed.  The  setting  of  this  scene  would 
certainly  be  more  easily  understood,  if  we  could  assume  here  the 
existence  of  a  '  middle  curtain '  cutting  off  a  part  of  the  main  stage, 
such  as  Professor  Baker  (The  Developement  of  Shakespeare,  chapter  on 
'  The  Stage  of  Shakespeare ')  believes  in  and  Mr  Archer  denies.  But 
wherever  the  scaffold  was  placed  it  is  plain  enough  that  this  striking, 
and  in  its  time  popular,  play  closes  with  a  very  effective  tableau  or 
'  curtain.' 

f  T.  M.  PAEROTT. 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


SPENSER'S  'AMORETTI'  AND   DESPORTES. 

THE  Amoretti  of  Spenser  are  generally  considered  to  be  the  best 
Elizabethan  sonnets  next  to  those  of  Shakespeare.  It  is  not  our 
purpose  in  th*e  present  note  to  dispute  this  verdict,  though  we  may 
perhaps  be  allowed  to  hazard  the  opinion  that  for  a  collection  of  sonnets 
composed  in  the  heat  of  personal  passion  and  in  honour  of  the  lady 
whom  Spenser  was  afterwards  to  wed,  if  indeed  this  traditional  assump- 
tion is  the  correct  one1,  not  a  few  abound  in  stale  conceits  and  trite 
comparisons  of  the  usual  type  found  in  the  courtly  and  conventional 
sonnet  sequences  then  in  vogue,  which  shows  their  relative  inferiority 
as  compared  to  Spenser's  other  work.  This  lends  to  many  of  them 
a  certain  note  of  artificiality  which  leaves  the  impression  that  we  are 
in  presence  of  a  literary  exercise  rather  than  a  spontaneous  and  natural 
outpouring  of  pre-marital  affection.  This  impression  is  reinforced,  and 
to  a  certain  extent  corroborated,  when  Spenser's  methods  are  looked 
into,  and  when  his  originality,  in  this  species  of  composition,  is  found 
to  be  not  much  greater  than  that  of  the  general  run  of  Elizabethan 
sonneteers.  Not  that  Spenser  can  be  charged,  like  Lodge  or  Daniel, 
with  descending  to  wholesale  literary  piracy.  Yet  his  indebtedness  is 
not  inconsiderable,  and  just  because  Spenser  is  so  great  a  poet,  it  is  all 
the  more  striking. 

Spenser  is  usually  stated  to  have  sought  his  inspiration  for  the 
Amoretti  in  Petrarch;  this  assertion  is  true  in  the  general  sense  that 
practically  all  the  sonneteers  of  the  sixteenth  century  followed  Petrarch  ; 
his  action  did  not  require  the  apology  of  his  friend  Gabriel  Harvey. 
But  they  did  so  mo're  OF  less  directly;  some  followed  the  master  more 
particularly,  and  others  his  disciples.  Spenser  was  one  of  the  latter, 
and  instead  of  going  directly  to  the  author  of  Laura  he  preferred  to 

1  On  this  point  compare  Mr  Percy  W.  Long's  article  in  the  Modern  Language  Review 
(April,  1908). 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  5 


66  Spenser s  'Amoretti'  and  Desportes 

borrow  second-hand  from  Philippe  Desportes,  whose  last  sonnet-collec- 
tion Cleonice  had  appeared  in  1583.  This  statement  of  course  is  not 
meant  to  be  so  absolute  as  to  preclude  the  possibility,  or  even  the 
probability,  that  many  a  turn  or  conceit  in  the  Amoretti  was  trans- 
planted without  any  intermediary  from  Petrarch's  Rime  which  by  that 
date  Spenser  had  certainly  read  in  the  Italian  original.  But  the  general 
proposition  stands  and,  we  venture  to  think,  resists  all  scrutiny  that  the 
Petrarchism  of  the  Amoretti  has  its  main  source  not  directly  in  the 
sonnets  of  Petrarch.  It  was  not  the  first  time,  to  borrow  Mr  Sidney 
Lee's  felicitous  expression,  that  the  author  of  the  Faerie  Queene  had 
travelled  to  the  Italian  shrine  through  France. 

This  infatuation  of  the  Elizabethan  sonneteers  for  the  productions 
of  the  Abbe  de  Thiron  is  one  of  the  most  curious  things,  in  literature ; 
it  demonstrates  that  the  critical  instinct  of  great  writers  for  what  is 
base  or  noble  in  literature  is  not  always  unerring.  Why  of  French 
poets  did  Spenser  pick  out  Desportes  as  a  model,  rather  than  Du  Bellay 
from  whom  he  had  drawn  his  first  literary  sustenance,  or  Ronsard  who 
was  still  at  the  height  of  his  fame  ?  It  also  adds  further  evidence  that 
the  influence  exercised  by  French  literature  on  Spenser  was  greater 
than  is  generally  supposed. 

The  credit  of  having  first  pointed  to  Desportes  as  the  model  for 
certain  sonnets  of  the  Amoretti  belongs  to  Mr  Sidney  Lee;  in  the 
Introduction  (pp.  xcii  ff.)  to  his  Elizabethan  Sonnets  (1904),  he  has 
traced  back  to  Desportes  two  of  the  sonnets  of  the  Amoretti  (Sonnets 
XV  and  LXVIII),  and  ventured  the  opinion  that,  in  spite  of  his  genuine 
poetic  force,  the  greater  part  of  Spenser's  sonneteering  efforts  abound 
in  strange  conceits  which  are  often  silently  borrowed  from  foreign 
literature.  For  this  statement  he  has  been  rather  rudely  taken  to 
task  by  certain  critics.  They  could  not  bear  that  one  of  the  greatest 
of  English  poets,  the  'poet's  poet,'  should  be  shown  to  owe  anything 
more  to  foreign  creditors.  They  did  not  even  allege  the  usual  'je 
prends  mon  bien  la  ou  je  le  trouve.'  There  was  nothing  new  in  this 
attitude;  it  was  merely  a  repetition  of  what  had  already  been  heard 
when  somebody  else  had  ventured  to  assert  that  the  original  of  much 
in  the  Faerie  Queene  was  to  be  found  in  the  Orlando  Furioso1. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  Mr  Sidney  Lee  has  considerably  understated  the 
extent  of  Spenser's  debt,  in  the  A  moretti,  to  Desportes,  and  we  will  now 

1  Nothing  can  be  more  effective  in  a  like  case  than  the  accumulation  of  facts,  and  all 
students  of  literature  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  Mr  Neil  Dodge  for  having  settled  the 
question  of  Spenser's  dependence  on  Ariosto  in  his  admirable  study  in  the  Publications  of 
the  Modem  Language  Association  of  America,  vol.  xn,  No.  2  (Baltimore,  1897). 


L.    E.    KASTNER 


67 


proceed  to  show  that  a  considerable  number  of  examples  must  be  added 
to  those  instanced  by  him  : 

Sonnet  xvni  is  a  condensation  of  Sonnet  LI  of  Les  Amours  d'Hippo- 
lyte  (CEuvres,  ed.  Michiels,  p.  151) : 

The  rolling  wheel,  that  runneth   often          L'eau  tombant  d'un  lieu  haut  goute 

round,  a  goute  a  puissance 

The  hardest  steel  in  tract  of  time  doth      Centre  les  marbres  durs,  cavez  finable- 


tear : 


ment; 


And  drizzling  drops,  that  often  do  re-      Et  le  sang  du  lion  force  le  diamant, 

dound, 
The  firmest  flint  doth  in  continuance      Bien  qu'il  face  k  1'enclume  et  au  feu 

resistance. 
La  flamme  reteniie  enfin  par  violance 


wear : 

Yet  cannot  I,  with  many  a  dropping  tear 
And    long    entreaty,    soften    her    hard      Brise  la  pierre  vive,  et  rompt  1'empesche- 


heart ; 


ment; 


That  she  will  once  vouchsafe  my  plaint      Les  aquilons  mutins,  soufflans  horrible- 


to  hear, 


ment, 


Or  look  with  pity  on  my  painful  smart ;      Tombent  le  chesne  vieux,  qui  fait  plus 

de  defiance. 
But,  when  I  plead,  she  bids   me  play          Mais  moy,   maudit  Amour,  nuict  et 


my  part; 


jour  souspirant, 


And,  when  I  weep,  she  says,  '  Tears  are      Et  de  mes  yeux  meurtris  tant  de  larmes 


but  water,' 


tirant, 


And,  when  I  sigh,  she  says,   '  I   know  Tant  de  sang  de  ma  playe,  et  de  feux 

the  art';  de  mon  ame; 

And,  when  I  wail,  she  turns  herself  to  Je  ne  puis  amollir  une  dure  beaute", 

laughter. 

So  do  I  weep,  and  wail,  and  plead  in  Qui,  las!  tout  au  contraire  accroist  sa 

vain,  cruaute 

Whiles  she  as  steel  and   flint  doth  Par    mes    pleurs,  par   mon   sang,  mes 

still  remain.  soupirs  et  ma  flame. 

Sonnet   xxn   is   a   close   paraphrase  of  Sonnet   XLIII  of  Diane  I 
((Euvres,  p.  31): 

This  holy  season,  fit  to  fast  and  pray,          Solitaire  et  pensif,  dans  un  bois  ecarte", 
Men  to  devotion  ought  to  be  inclined:       Bien  loin  du  populaire  et  de  la  tourbe 

espesse, 
Therefore,  I  likewise,  on  so  holy  day,        Je  veux   bastir  un   temple  a  ma   fiere 

deesse, 
For   my  sweet   saint   some  service  fit      Pour  apprendre  mes  vreux  a  sa  divinite. 

will  find. 
Her  temple  fair  is  built  within  my  mind,          La,  de  jour  et  de  nuit,  par  moy  sera 

chante 
In  which  her  glorious  image  placed  is,      Le  pouvoir  de  ses  yeux,  sa  gloire  et  sa 

hautesse ; 
On  which  my  thoughts  do  day  and  night      Et  devot,  son  beau  nom  j'invoqueray 


attend, 


sans  cesse, 


Like    sacred    priests    that    never  think      Quand  je  seray  pressd  de  quelque  ad- 
amiss  ! 
There  I  to  her,  as  th'author  of  my  bliss, 


versite". 
Mon  ceil  sera  la  lampe  ardant  con- 

tinuelle, 
Will  build  an  altar  to  appease  her  ire ;      Devant    1'image    saint    d'une    dame  si 

belle ; 
And  on  the  same  my  heart  will  sacrifice,      Mon  corps  sera  1'autel,  et  mes  soupirs 

les  vreux. 

5—2 


68 


Spenser  s  'Amoretti'  and  Desportes 


Burning  in  flames  of  pure  and  chaste          Par  mille  et  mille  vers  je  chanteray 

desire :  Poffice, 

The  which  vouchsafe,  0  goddess,  to      Puis,  espanchant  mes  pleurs  et  coupant 

accept,  mes  cheveux, 

Amongst  thy  dearest  relics  to  be  kept.      J'y  feray  tous  les  jours  de  rnon  cceur 

sacrifice. 

With  the  exception  of  the  first  quatrain,  Sonnet  xi  of  Cleonice 
((Euvres,  p.  184)  reappears,  in  a  somewhat  modified  guise,  as  Sonnet 
LXIX  of  the  Amoretti : 

The  famous  warriors  of  antique  world          Si  trop  en  vous  servant,  6  ma  mort 

bien-aimee ! 
Used  trophies  to  erect  in  stately  wise ;      L'ardant  feu  de  mon  coeur  eclaire  et  se 

fait  voir ; 
In  which  they  would  the  records  have      Si  Ton  dit  qu'a  son  gr^  vostre  ceil  me 


enroll'd 


fait  mouvoir, 


Of  their  great  deeds  and  valorous  em-      Et  que  de  vous  sans  plus  ma  vie  est 


prize. 

What  trophy  then  shall  I  most  fit  de- 
vise, 


animee ; 

Une  si  pure  ardeur,  qui  n'a  point  de 
fumee, 


In  which  I  may  record  the  memory          Devant  tous  peut  reluire  et  monstrer 

son  pouvoir. 
Of  my  love's  conquest,  peerless  beauty's      Tant  de  vers,  qui  si  loin  mes  douleurs 


prize, 


font  s£avoir, 


Adorn'd  with  honour,  love,  and  chastity !      Sont  des  arcs  que  je  dresse  a  vostre 

renomm^e. 
Even  this  verse,  vow'd  to  eternity,  Jadis  entre  les  Grecs,  quand  1'hon- 

neur  y  vivoit, 
Shall  be  thereof  immortal  monument ;       Le  vainqueur  des  vaincus  maint  trophee 

elevoit, 

And  tell  her  praise  to  all  posterity,  Fait  d'etofte  legere  et  de  peu  de  duree. 

That    may   admire    such   world's    rare          Mais  moy  que  ma  deffaite  a  rendu 

wonderment ;  glorieux, 

The  happy  purchase  of  my  glorious      Bien  que  je  sois  vaincu,  j'eleve  en  divers 


spoil, 


lieux 


Gotten  at  last  with  labour  and  long      Maint    trophic    immortel    pour    vous 


toil. 


rendre  honoree. 


Sonnet  L  was  certainly  suggested  by  Sonnet  Lin  ((Euvres,  p.  153) 
of  Les  Amours  d'Hippolyte,  though  the  resemblance  in  particulars  is 
not  very  close : 

Long  languishing  in  double  malady  Bien  qu'une  fievre  tierce  en  mes  veines 

boiiillonne, 
Of  my  heart's  wound,  and  of  my  body's      De  cent  troubles  divers  mon  esprit  agi- 


grief ; 


tant, 


There  came  to  me  a  leech,  that  would      M^decins  abusez,  ne  dites  pas  pourtant 

apply 
Fit  medicines  for  my  body's  best  relief.      Qu'une  humeur  cholericq'  ces  tempestes 

me  donne. 
Vain  man,  quoth  I,  that  hast  but  little          Je  suis  trop  patient,  je  n'offence  per- 

prief  sonne, 

In  deep  discovery  of  the  mind's  disease ;      Et  vay  de  mes  amis  le  courroux  sup- 

portant, 

Is  not  the  heart  of  all  the  body  chief,      Tout  paisible  et  tout  coy,  sans  qu'en 

me  despitant 


L.    E.    KASTNER  69 

And  rules  the  members  as  itself  doth  Je    remasche    un   venin,   qui    le    coeur 

please  ?  m'empoisonne. 

Then,  with  some  cordials,  seek  first  to  Celle  dont  1'influence  altere  mes  hu- 

appease  meurs, 

The   inward    languor   of    my  wounded  Qui  fait  par  sa  rigueur  qu'avant  1'age 

heart,  je  meurs, 

And  then  my  body  shall  have  shortly  Est  cause  de  ma  fievre,  et  non  pas  la 

ease :  colere. 

But  such  sweet  cordials  pass  physician's  Las !   je  n'ay  point  de  fiel !    car  je 

art.  voudroy  donner 

Then,  my  life's  leech!   do  your  skill  Cent   baisers,  en  mourant,  a  ma  belle 

reveal ;  adversaire, 

And,  with  one  salve,  both  heart  and  Pour  monstrer  que   ma  mort  je   scay 

body  heal.  bien  pardonner. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  Sonnet  XLVIII  ('Innocent  paper;  whom 
too  cruel  hand')  and  of  Sonnet  LXXV  of  Diane  n  ('  O  vers  que  j'ai 
chantez  en  1'ardeur  qui  m'enflamme '),  and  of  Sonnet  LX  ('  They,  that 
in  course  of  heavenly  spheres  are  skilled ')  and  Sonnet  iv  of  Cleonice 
('  D'une  douleur  poignante  ayant  1'ame  blessee '). 

In  other  sonnets  the  imitation  is  confined  to  the  quatrains  or  to  the 
tercets,  as  in  the  following : 

Leave,  lady!   in  your  glass  of  crystal      Pourquoy  si  folement  croyez-vous  k  un 

clean,  verre, 

Your  goodly  self  for  evermore  to  view:      Voulant  voir  les  beautez  que  vous  avez 

des  cieux? 
And  in  my  self,  my  inward  self,  I  mean,      Mirez-vous  dessus  moy  pour  les  con- 

noistre  mieux, 

Most  lively  like  behold  your  semblance      Et  voyez  de  quels  traits  vostre  bel  oail 
true.  m'enferre. 

Lastly  Desportes'  fondness  for  similes  taken  from  battles  or  sieges 
finds  a  striking  parallel  in  several  sonnets  of  the  Amoretti,  as  do, 
indeed,  other  conceits  and  hyperboles  affected  by  the  French  poet. 
We  should  weary  the  reader  by  quoting  the  passages  or  single  lines 
containing  these  similes  and -conceits;  we  prefer  to  invite  him  to  read 
carefully  the  two  sonneteers,  and  by  noting  these  and  other  details  in 
their  own  setting,  to  see  for  himself  how  deeply  immersed  Spenser  is 
in  Desportes'  thought  and  language.  At  the  same  time  we  do  not 
wish  to  as  much  as  hint  that  Spenser's  versions  are  not  immeasurably 
superior  to  those  of  the  French  poet,  or  that  the  beauty  and  charm 
they  contain  are  not  emphatically  his  own. 

L.  E.  KASTNER. 

ABEBTSTWYTH. 


ZWEI  ALTFBANZOSISCHE   MARIENGEBETE. 

I. 

RELIGIOSE  Dichtungen  dieser  Art,  in  welchen  reuige  Sunder  mit 
Berufung  auf  die  freudenreichen  Begebenheiten  im  Leben  der  Jungfrau 
Maria  und  ihres  gottlichen  Sohnes  diese  urn  Hilfe  und  Beistand  im 
Kampfe  des  Lebens  flehen,  waren  in  Frankreich  besonders  im  xin. 
Jahrhundert,  dem  Zeitalter  der  eifrigsten  Marienverehrung,  sehr  ver- 
breitet.  Am  haufigsten  wies  man  auf  fiinf  Ereignisse  bin,  die  Maria  zu 
besonderer  Freude  gereichten:  die  Verkiindigung,  die  Geburt  Jesu  (die 
Anbetung  der  Konige)  das  Wiedersehn  Jesu  nach  seiner  Auferstehung, 
die  Himmelfahrt  Christi  und  Mariae.  Wir  kennen  etwa  sechs  verschie- 
dene  Versionen1  dieses  namentlich  von  Gautier  de  Coincy  behandelten 
Stoffes,  dessen  (lateinische)  Prosafassung  in  einzelnen  Handschriften  dem 
Bischof  von  Paris  Maurice  de  Sully  (f  1196)  zugeschrieben  wird2.  Sel- 
tener  wurden  sieben  und  neun  Freuden3  besungen,  erstere  von  einem 
Henri  de  Wallentinnes  (Valenciennes)4,  letztere  in  einem  in  zahlreichen 
Handschriften  erhaltenen  Hymnus  Heine  de  pitie  Marie5,  als  dessen 
Verfasser  Rutebuef,  Nicole  de  Bozon  und  Guillaume  de  Saint-Amour 
genannt  werden,  ferner  in  einem  anonymen  noch  ungedruckten  Gedichte 
Esjoui  toi,  merge  Marie  (Hs.  Chartres  1036,  fol.  126  v. — xiv.  Jahrh.)6. 

1  S.  die  Gedichte,  welche  zumeist  von  P.  Meyer  bekannt  gemacht  warden,  in  Romania, 
x,  623;  xv,  307;  xxx,  571  und  574;  vgl.  Reinsch  in  Zeitschriftf.  rom.  Philulogie,  in,  202; 
Grober  im   Grundriss,  n,  i,   S.  973;    Handschriftennachweise  bei  Naetebus,    Die   nicht- 
lyrischen  Strophenforme.n  im  Altfranzosischen  (Leipzig  1891),  S.  76,  100,  133,  139. 

2  Zu  den  von  P.  Meyer  in  Romania,  xxxv,  571  angefiihrten  Hss.  gesellt  sich  noch 
Br.  M.  Harley  2253  (agn.),  wo  auf  fol.  134  v.  ein  'dem  Bischof  von  Paris  von  Maria 
zugesandtes'   Prosagebet  mit   denselben   Worten   beginnt   wie   das  a.   a.   0.   gedruckte 
Reimgebet  und  zwar :    Gloriouse  dame  que  le  fitz  Dieu  portastes. 

3  Ofter  in  der  lateinischen   geistlichen   Literatur,  die   noch   Lieder  von  x  und  xn 
Freuden  kennt;    s.  Dreves,  Analecta   Hymnica,  xxxi,  S.  176  ff. ;   Romania,  xxxv,   571, 
Anm.  3. 

4  Grundriss,  n,  i,  S.  687. 

5  S.  die  Drucke  und  Handschriften  bei  Naetebus,  S.  163 ;  dazu  Hs.  Br.  M.  Additional 
16975,   fol.  236  r — 238  r  und   ein  Fragment   mit   Noten  in   der  Bodleiana  zu   Oxford 
(xiv.  Jh.). 

8  S.  Grundriss,  n,  i,  S.  973. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  71 

Dann  verherrlichte  man  ftinfzehn  Freuden  in  gebundener  und  in  unge- 
bundener  Rede,  besonders  in  letzterer  Form,  wovon  die  Livres  d'heures 
des  xv.  und  xvi.  Jahrhunderts  (Handschriften  und  Drucke)  Zeugnis 
geben1.  Diesen  Stoff  verwertete  bekanntlich  auch  Christine  de  Pisan 
in  einem  Gebete  (zehnsilbige  Kreuzreime).  Auf  eine  nicht  bestimmte 
Zahl  von  Freuden  (und  Leiden)  schliesslich  berufen  sich  zwei  gereimte 
Mariengebete  in  der  bekannten  anglonormannischen  Handschrift  522 
des  Lambeth  Palastes  zu  London2. 

Zu  der  Gattung  der  eben  erwahnten  gereimten  Gebete  mit  Hinweis 
auf  die  funfzehn  Freuden  der  Gottesmutter  gehoren  auch  die  hier  zum 
erstenmal  abgedruckten  Texte.  Die  erstere,  in  der  im  Mittelalter  sehr 
beliebten  Helinandstrophe  (Schema  aab  aab  bba  bba)  verfasste  Dichtung 
ist  uns  meines  Wissens  einzig  erhalten  in  Hs.  Royal  11  B  in  (26  x  17,5 — 
Perg. — 361  Bl.)  des  British  Museum  zu  London,  einem  frliher  der  Abtei 
Bury  St  Edmunds  gehorigen  Sammelbande  mit  lateinischen,  religiosen 
Traktaten3  in  den  Schriftziigen  des  xm.  und  xiv.  Jahrhunderts.  Am 
Schlusse  nun  auf  Bl.  360  v — 361  r  findet  sich  unser  Gedicht  niederge- 
schrieben  nach  alter  Weise  in  Langzeilen,  von  denen  eine  jede  drei 
achtsilbige  Verse  umfasst,  so  dass,  da  der  Beginn  einer  neuen  Strophe 
nicht  durch  einen  Absatz  oder  bunten  Buchstaben  gekennzeichnet  ist, 
das  ganze  Stiick  wie  aus  paarweis  (durch  Endreim)  gebundenen  Lang- 
versen  mit  zweifachem  Binnenreim  bestehend  erscheint.  Schreiber  und 
wohl  auch  Verfasser  des  Lobgedichtes  (loengette)  war  ein  Bruder  der 
Abtei,  wie  der  folgende  Vermerk  am  Kopfe  des  Blattes  zeigt:  Frater 
Martinus  me  scripsit  cui  Christus  sit  propicius.  amen.  Die  Sprache 
des  im  iibrigen  fiir  einen  Anglonormannen  des  xiv.  Jahrhunderts  ziem- 
lich  korrekt  gebauten  Gedichtes  giebt  zu  Bemerkungen  kaum  Anlass. 
Ich  erwahne  nur:  e  aus  ie  (lumere,  v.  4),  u  fiir  o  (munde  6),  aim  fur  an 
(plesauntie,  74);  in  der  Graphic  haufige  Verwendung  des  Zeichens  y, 
Wechsel  von  s  und  z  sowie  s  und  c,  Bewahrung  der  losen  Dentalis  (ad 
168) — lauter  wohlbekannte  Ziige  der  spaten  anglonormannischen  Periode. 

Einer  grossen  Beliebtheit—  besonders  im  Osten  Frankreichs — scheint 
sich  das  zweite,  in  achtsilbigen  Reimpaaren  verfasste  Gebet  erfreut  zu 

1  S.  P.  Meyer  im  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  des  ancient  textes  franyais,  Jahrg.  1881,  S.  47 
und  Jahrg.  1901,  S.  79.     Ich  kenne  etwa  zwanzig  handschriftliche  Livres  d'heures  im 
British  Museum  und  derBodleiana,  welche  Prosagebete  dieser  Art  euthalten. 

2  S.  Archiv  f.  d.  Studium  der  neueren  Sprachen  u.  Literaturen,  Bd.  LXIII,  S.  91  und  93 ; 
vergl.  Naetebus,  S.  174. 

3  Die  Hs.  enthalt  unter  anderen  erbaulichen  Schriften :  Ronaventurae  (t  1274)  Lignum 
Vitae  (s.  Grundriss,  u,  i,   203),  Roberti  Grostete  (f  1253)  Line.  Episc.  de  X  praeceptis, 
S.  Pauli  Visio  inferni  (s.  Grundriss,  u,  i,  143). 

4  liber  die  Geschichte  der  Schweifreimstrophe  sehe  man  Suchier  in  der  Einleitung  zur 
Reimpredigt,  S.  xliv. 


72  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

haben,  nach  der  Anzahl  der  Handschriften  zu  urteilen,  in  denen  es  sich 
erhalten  findet.  Eine  seines  Erachtens  'sicherlich  unvollstandige'  Liste1 
hat  P.  Meyer  in  der  Romania,  Bd.  xxvm,  S.  248  verdffentlicht.  Ich 
bringe  diese  mit  entsprechenden  Zusatzen  hier  nochmals  zum  Abdruck : 
(1)  Charleville,  90,  fol.  22  v.  (Ende  des  xni.  oder  Anfang  des  xiv.  Jh.)2. 
Es  fehlen  die  ersten  38  Verse  (unseres  Textes);  v.  39 — 78  wurden  von 
P.  Meyer  a.  a.  O.  mitgeteilt.  (2)  Oxford,  Bodl.  Douce,  39  (jetzt  21613), 
fol.  166  r.  (Anf.  des  xiv.  Jh.)3.  (3)  Paris  Arsenal,  570,  fol.  132  (xiv.  Jh.), 
in  Metzer  Mundart.  Die  ersten  16  Verse  wurden  im  Jahre  1901 
von  P.  Meyer  gedruckt  aus  Anlass  der  ausfiihrlichen  Beschreibung  der 
Handschrif't  im  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  des  Anciens  Textes  Frangais 
(S.  69).  (4)  Paris,  Bibl.  nat,  latin  1169,  fol.  149  v.  (5)  Paris,  Bibl. 
nat.  1553,  fol.  524  (Jahr  1284).  Beginn:  Ave  dame  tresglorieuse. 
(6)  Paris,  Bibl.  nat.,  23111,  fol.  208  (xm.  Jh.)  betitelt:  Dit  de  Nostre 
Dame.  Von  G.  Grober  angefuhrt  im  Grundriss,  II,  I.  Abt.,  S.  973, 
Anm.  5.  (7)  Troyes,  1905,  fol.  176  (xiv.  Jh.)4.  (8)  Turin,  LV  32, 
fol.  23  (Ende  des  xm.  Jh.)5. 

Da  ich  mit  dieser  Publikation  nicht  beabsichtigte,  eine  kritische 
Ausgabe  des  literarisch  wenig  bedeutsamen  Gedichtes  herzustellen,  bios 
einen  weiteren  Beitrag  zur  Kenntnis  der  geistlichen  Poesie  des  mittel- 
alterlichen  Frankreich  liefern  wollte,  so  habe  ich  aus  der  obigen  Reihe 
nur  die  beiden  lothringischen  Reimofficien  von  Troyes  und  Oxford 
herangezogen  und  zwar  die  erstere  Hs.  als  die  bessere  dem  Texte  zu- 
grunde  gelegt.  Von  O  habe  ich  die  Lesarten  verwertet  und  die 
weitschweifige,  von  T  durchaus  verschiedene  Schlussstrophe  in  einem 
Nachtrag  zur  Kenntnis  gebracht. 

Was  die  Sprache  dieses  Textes  in  der  uns  durch  T  uberlieferten 
Gestalt  betrifft,  so  ist  in  erster  Linie  zu  bemerken,  dass  der  den  ostli- 
chen  Mundarten  eigentumliche  Nachlaut  i  hier  nur  stets  nach  e  in  den 
Entsprechungen  der  lateinischen  Endungen  -atem  und  -atum  (z.  B. 
poestei :  manifestei  229,  230)  selten  nach  den  anderen  Vokalen  (brais  92 
im  Versinnern,  secoirauble  243,  fui  10,  53)  auftritt6,  wahrend  die  entge- 
gengesetzte  Erscheinung,  die  Reduktion,  haufiger  sich  findet :  aasier  93 

1  S.  Bulletin,  1901,  S.  68. 

s  S.  Romania,  xxvm,  S.  246  ff. 

3  S.  A  Summary  Catalogue  of  Western  Manuscripts  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford, 
by  F.  Madan,  vol.  iv  (Oxford,  1897)  S.  500.     Zur  Beschreibung  der  Hs.  ist  noch  hinzuzu- 
fiigen,   dass   auf  dem  ersten  Blatt   von  einer  spateren  Hand  die  Jahreszahl  MCCCVIII 
eingetragen  wurde. 

4  S.  Catalogue  general  des  MSS.  des  bibliotheques  de  France,  Bd.  n,  S.  787. 

5  Naheres  iiber  diese  Hs.  und  deren  Mundart  (wallonisch)  sehe  man  bei  Langfors, 
Li  Regres  Nostre  Dame  par  Huon  le  Roi  de  Cambrai,  Einl.,  S.  v  ff. 

6  Die  dialekttreuere  Oxforder  Hs.  zeigt  den  Nachlaut  stets  nach  a  und  e. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  73 

nassement  H0,fasoit  114,  251,plasir  224,  appasier  276,  ansi  113,  a  120 
uud  273,  mastres  207,  porra  338  im  Versinnern;  liosse  169  (:  largesse) 
unsicher1,  jo[o\usse  75.  Sonst  sind  noch  zu  beachten  die  lothringischen, 
z.  T.  auch  dem  Norden  nicht  fremden  Besonderheiten  :  e  =  a\  oi  fur 
ei,  auch  wo  die  lateinische  Grundlage  gedecktes  e  zeigt  wie  in  noite  171 
und  adroice  26  (im  Versinnern);  ouz  fur  eu  (in  der  Endung  -or);  s,  das  auch 
intervokalisch  im  Lothringischen  (besonders  im  Metzischen)  stimmlos 
(ss)  war3,  wechselt  in  der  Schreibung  mit  c  und  mit  z  (im  Auslaut)  und 
wird  auch  durch  sc  dargestellt  in  der  Endung  -esce  (z.  B.  largesce :  liesce 
247,  248);  lateinisches  I  vor  Konsonanten  unterdriickt  in  damoises  201, 
im  Reime  auf  bez — savaor  19,  vosis  24,  miez  141,  mavais  174,  ques  245 
(im  Versinnern).  Endung  -auble  <  -able. 

Zum  Versbau,  der  als  recht  sorgfaltig  bezeichnet  werden  kann,  ist 
wenig  zu  sagen.  Auf  die  bemerkenswerten  Reime  liosse  :  largesse  169 
und  lioisse  :  destresce  179  wurde  schon  hingewiesen;  bei  suers  :  cuer  81 
und  maladiez  :  vie  257  kommt  auslautendes  s  (z)  nicht  in  Betracht. 
Noch  orguil  :  suel  27.  Vortoniges  im  Hiatus  stehendes  e  ist  bewahrt 
geblieben  in  heus  :  receus  (21,  22)  :  esmeus  (65,  66),  veue  106,  conceu  34, 
elidirt  in  resut :  dut  159,  160. 

Zum  Schluss  erfulle  ich  die  angenehme  Pflicht,  meinen  herzlichsten 
Dank  zu  erstatten :  meinem  Vetter  Robert  Priebsch  in  London,  der  mir 
in  unermtidlicher  Weise  seine  Unterstiitzung  zuteil  werden  Hess,  dem 
Bibliothekar  der  Stadtbibliothek  zu  Troyes  Herrn  L.  Morel  fur  die 
sorgsam  ausgeflihrte  Kopie  der  nicht  leicht  leserlichen  Handschrift. 


I. 

fol.  360  v.     I     Recorder  voif  la  joie  primere, 
Ke  veroyment  esteit  rivere 
Dunt  tout  li  biens  nus  surhabunde: 
Ceo  fu  kant  Tangle  de  lumere 
Saluz  te  dist  d'amur  entere 
6  De  par  li  rois  de  tot  le  munde 

1  Wegen  lioisse:  destresce  179  (dessen  oi  die  Aussprache  oe  voraussetzt)  und  zentral- 
franzosisch  liesce  248.    Betreffs  burgundischen  -oce<-ltia  sehe  man  Langfors  in   der 
Einleitung  zu  Li  Regres  Nostre  Dame,  S.  xcvn  ;  dazu  die  Reimworte  paroce  und  viloce  in 
De  David  li  prophecie,  v.  1005  u.  1362  (Zeitschrift  f.  Rom.  Phil.,  Bd.  xix,  S.  189  ff.). 

2  Nach  Bonnardot  (Guerre  de  Metz,  8.  438)  klang  ou  im  Lothringischen  wie  ein  langes 
und  dumpfes  o. 

3  Die  in  O  und  anderen  lothringischen  Hss.  iibliche  Schreibung  -ix  findet  sich  hier 
selten  :  moix  90. 


74  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

Pur  tei  s'amie  pure  e  munde, 
Ke  n'as  primere  ne  secunde, 
A  ki  nule  se  compere. 
Pur  ceste  joie,  ke  surunde, 
Fai  nostre  vie  bone  e  munde 
12  E  nus  defend  de  mort  amere. 

II     La  secunde  joie  k'avoies 
Kant  engrossie  te  sentoies 
Virginalment  de  fruit  de  vie, 
E  seuses  bien  ke  mestroies 
Par  celi  ke  tu  portoies 

18  Le  tirant  plein  de  felounie. 
Hey,  Deus !   cum  fusses  enjoie 
Kant  si  te  sentis  replenie 
Ke  plus  pure,  ke  liz  estoyes  ! 
Pur  ceste  joie  fai  aye 
A  cele  ke  de  quer  te  prie 

24  E  ses  dolurs  turne  en  joyes. 

III  La  terce  joie  esteit  mut  bele, 
Kant  mere  son  seignur  tei  apele 
Elisabeth  la  tresene, 

Vers  ki  tu  prens  la  centele; 

E  lors  de  joie  tresaut  ele 
30  E  sa  porture  en  ly  serre. 

E  tu  ke  fus  virge  sacre 

De  chaunter  te  as  apreste ; 

E  lors  trovas  changon  novele : 

Magnificat  est  appelle. 

Pur  ceste  joie  esmerre 
36  Nos  quers  en  t'amur  renovele. 

IV  La  quarte  joie  est  ben  soveraine, 
Kant  enfauntas  sans  nule  paine 
Li  rois,  ki  touz  les  sens  avoye, 
E  aletas  de  douce  vayne 

Cely  ki  tient  en  sun  demeyne 
42  Li  ciel,  ke  touz  les  sens  festoye. 
Douce  dame,  pur  ceste  joie 
De  ceste  doleruse  voye 


J.    PRIEBSCH  75 


Du  mund  al  ciel  lasus  nus  meyne. 
Envers  cell  ke  nus  gueroie 
La  banere  ton  fiz  desploie, 
48  Lors  averoms  victorie  certayne. 

V     La  quinte  joie  est  esmere, 
Kant  des  angles  1'asemble 
A  toi  veneient,  mere  e  pucele, 
Chantanz  a  voiz  sanz  dure : 
"  A  Deu  seit  la  glorie  done 

54  E  a  genz  bone  pes  novele." 
Dame,  pur  ceste  joie  bele 
De  ta  face  nus  renovele 
Kant  morz  trera  sa  dure  espe, 
E  par  ta  voiz,  ke  veint  viele, 
A  ceste  feste  nus  apele 

60  Ou  sur  tuz  es  honure. 

VI     Dame  digne  de  tutes  joies, 
Ta  joie  sime,  ke  avoies, 
Voil  par  ta  grace  dire  enprendre: 
Ce  fu,  voir,  kant  de  lunges  voies 
Venoient,  si  com  tu  veioies, 
66  Les  treis  reis  pur  lur  present  rendre 
A  ton  enfant  novel  e  tendre; 
E  tu  de  lur  present  prendre 
Trestot  1'entendement  savoies. 
Douce  dame,  a  nus  entendre 
Voilez  e  de  tuz  maus  defendre 
72  Pur  eel  honur  ke  lors  avoies. 

VII     Ta  setime  joie  est  seirie 

E  plein  de  grant  plesauntie, 
Kant  tu  feseis  ta  offrende  chere 
Pur  tun  fiz,  ki  est  rei  de  vie, 
E  Symeon  en  haut  s'escrie: 
78  "Joe  voy  de  salu  la  banere; 
Ne  me  ert  grief  si  mort  ere, 
Pues  ke  je  enbrace  la  lumere 


76  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

De  totez  joies  replenie." 
Dame,  pur  ceste  joie  clere 
Kant  nus  asaudra  mort  amere 
84  De  venir  lors  ne  target  mie. 


VIII     Ta  joie  utime  est  treselite : 
Ce  fu  kant  revins  de  Egite 
En  ton  pais,  virgine  Marie, 
E  fustes  delivere  e  tote  quite 
De  la  malice  k'avoit  dite 
90  Li  rois  Herodes  par  envie: 
As  enfanz  tolt  la  vie. 
Hey!   dame,  en  ki  mi  quers  s'afie, 
En  ki  plente  de  grace  habite, 
Pur  cele  joie  tres  seirie 
En  ceste  mer  ma  nef  si  guie 
96  Ke  vienge  au  port  pur  ta  merite ! 

IX     La  joie  novime  puis  avoies 
Kant  ton  fiz  od  tei  amenoies 
En  Jerusalem  a  la  feste, 
E  lors  kant  tu  perdu  1'avoies 
Par  treis  jurs  le  requeroies. 

102  Puis  li  trovas  tut  sanz  moleste 
Rendant  reson  bel  e  preste 
A  mestres  de  la  veile  geste, 
Si  bone  ke  te  merveiloyes. 
Par  ceste  joie,  mere  honeste, 
Gardet  ma  nef  en  la  tempeste 

108  Tu  ki  les  perilles  avoyes. 

X     Ta  dime  joie  est  celestine 
Kant  ton  fiz  par  vertu  divine 
Feseit  1'ewe  pure  enviner, 
Ceo  nus  mustranz  enterine 
Ke  sa  vertu  tres  noble  e  fine 

114  Deit  nostre  nature  afiner 
E  tutes  nos  dolurs  terminer 
E  les  maus  sus  raciner, 


J.    PRIEBSCH  77 


Ki  nus  tuz  en  la  mort  encline. 
Dame,  voillez  pur  moi  finer 
Kant  mort  vendra  mon  cors  miner; 
120  Ceo  frez,  voir,  je  le  destine. 

XI     Dame,  quel  sen  poroit  suffire 
A  droit  cunter  e  bien  dire 
La  grandur  de  ta  joie  unzime, 
Ke  tu  avoyes  sanz  dedire 
Kant  morz  revifre  e  pluranz  rire 

126  Fesoit  ton  fiz  li  tresayntime, 
Ki  les  cors  de  mauveis  lime 
E  les  almes  getoit  d'abime 
Par  la  force  de  son  empire ! 
Pur  ceste  joie  tresayntime 
Le  serpent,  ke  nus  envenime, 

132  Fay  feble  cum  en  fu  la  cire. 

fol.  361  r.    XII    La  joie  duzime  est  delicez, 
Kant  ton  cher  fiz  veyssez 
De  mort  ke  brusa  la  barrere, 
De  mort  ki  venquit  les  malices 
E  releva  pur  nus  laver  de  vices 

138  E  de  son  coste  fist  rivere. 
Pur  ceste  joie  singulere 
Fay  nus  lever  de  la  pudrere 
E  rumper  de  la  mort  les  lices, 
Apres  ceste  mort  amere 
Aver  resureccion  entere, 

144  Dunt  ton  fiz  mustre  les  primices. 

XIII     La  joie  treszime  lors  sentoies, 
Tredouce,  kant  veioyes 
En  char  humeyne  sacree 
E  prendre  vers  le  ciel  les  voies 
Ton  fiz,  lequel  tu  coveitoies, 
150  De  la  vowe  enluminee, 

Vers  la  curt  de  ciel  estelle". 
Hey !   douce  dame  honure, 


78  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

Pur  cele  joie  ke  lors  avoyes, 
De  mort  kant  vendra  ma  vespre, 
Seez  de  venir  aprest6  aprest6 ; 
156  Kar  si  tu  viens,  garri  m'averoies. 

XIV     Dame,  de  dolurs  aleggance, 

Fai  nus  bien  par  ta  voillance 
Dire  la  quatorzime  joie : 
Ele  estoit  sanz  nule  dotance 
Kant  li  seint  espirit,  t'aliance, 

162  Les  sainz  apostles  enflamboie. 
En  fins  armors  lor  quers  avoye 
Ki  tuz  languages  lur  otroye; 
Ceo  fu  noble  demustrance. 
Pur  ceste  joie  k'ici  cuntoie, 
Dame,  nus  mettez  en  droite  voie 

168  A  la  joie  ki  n'ad  faillance. 

XV     Le  sen  d'angle  ne  suffit  mie 
Ke  ta  quinzime  joie  die, 
Tant  est  grande  e  si  plenere, 
Kant  de  ceste  mortelc  vie 
Fuis  elev4  od  melodie 

174  A  ciel  de  gloire  singulere 

En  cors,  en  alme  pure  e  clere, 
Ou  ore  es  dame  e  conseillere, 
Mere,  ancelle,  espuse,  amie 
Au  roy,  ki  siet  en  chayere 
E  tant  te  honure  e  tient  chere 

180  Ke  toz  le  ciel  a  toi  s'umlie. 

Reyne,  a  ki  li  ciel  s'encline, 
E  ceste  loengette  afine, 
Prenk  ceste  petite  offrende, 
Ffay  mon  acord,  virge  trefine, 
A  ton  fiz  ki  toz  maus  termine, 
186  E  de  son  saunc  face  1'amende.     Amen. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  79 


ANMERKUNGEN. 

2  Ke  statt  ki  (vgl.  v.  10,  23, 31,  42,  58, 131  u.  6.)  haufig  in  anglonorm.  Denkmalern, 
ist  im  Boeve  de  Haumtone  (Ausg.  A.  Stimming,  Halle  1899)  die  iibliche  Form ;  s. 
daselbst  Einleitung,  S.  xxv. 

5  Anklang  an  die  weltlichen  Saluz  d1  amors ;  s.  uber  diese  Dichtungsart  P.  Meyer 
in  Bibl.  de  I'e'c.  des  chartes,  6e  ser.,  in  (1867),  124  und  Grober  im  Grundriss,  n,  i, 
968  ff. 

7  Hs.  par. 

9  Um  eine  Silbe  zu  kurz ;  vielleicht  e  oder  ne  einzufiigen. 

13  Fehlt  das  verbum  finitum  des  Hauptsatzes.  S.  iiber  solche  im  Altfranzosi- 
schen  nicht  seltene  anakoluthische  Ausdrucksweisen  Tobler,  Vermischte  Beitriige,  I, 
2.  Aufl.,  S.  248  ff. 

16,  19  senses,  fusses.  Die  Konjunktivformen  unrichtig  verwendet,  wohl  um  die 
voile  Silbenzahl  zu  erreichen  (vgl.  Boeve  S.  159).  Sie  konuen  in  seustes  und  fustes 
geandert  werden,  da  Wechsel  der  Person  auch  in  v.  71,  84,  107,  118,  120,  155,  167 
begegnet.  Konsonantvereinfachung  findet  sich  noch  in  gueroie  46,paroit  121,  asemble 
50,  Verdoppelung,  die  im  Anglonorm.  viel  haufigere  Erscheinung  (s.  Stimming, 
Boeve,  S.  239)  in  appelle  34,  esmerre  35,  o/rende  183,  /ay  (?)  184,  garri  156. 

23  Hs.  celuy  in  cele  geandert  :  das  Gebet  war  also  urspriinglich  fiir  einen  Mann 
bestimmt. 

27,  126,  130  Tresene',  tresayntime  :  tres  mit  dem  folgenden  Worte  eng  verbunden; 
vgl.  Tobler,  Verm.  Beitr.,  in,  S.  120  und  O.  Schultz-Gora,  Zwei  altfranzdsuche 
Dichtungen  (Halle,  1899),  S.  127  sowie  Sass,  L'Estoire  Joseph,  S.  107.  Wegen 
Verstummen  von  nachtonigem  e  im  Anglonorm.  (in  unserem  Texte  noch  in  den 
Fern,  serre  30,  sacre  31,  appele  34,  esmerre  35,  esmere  49,  asemble  50,  done  53,  espe  57, 
honure  60,  etc.)  vgl.  Stimming,  Boeve,  Einl.,  S.  xix  und  181  ff. 

28  centele,  Dem.  von  sente  '  sentier.'     Der  Vers  ist  zu  kurz. 

52  Besser  durete,  wodurch  auch  die  erforderliche  Silbenzahl  erreicht  wird. 

64  Hs.  lunge  v. 

74  Bessere  pleine  der  Silbenzahluqg  wegen  ;  s.  Anm.  27. 

81  totez,  delicez  133,  veyssez  134;  iiber  Vertauschung  von  s  mit  z  im  Anglonorm. 
vgl.  Stimming,  Boeve,  S.  225. 

84  target,  gardet  107,  2  pi.  (s.  Anm.  16)  eine  Besonderheit  des  anglonorm.  Dia- 
lektes ;  s.  Stimming,  a.  a.  0.,  S.  230. 

91  Vielleicht  A  tuz  e.  toilet  (s.  Anm.  84)  la  v. 

Ill  enmner  =  zn  Wein  werden  (?),  wohl  eine  Bildung  des  Bruder  Martin  dem 
(leonischen)  Reime  zuliebe.  Vgl.  encline  117  statt  enclinent. 

125  revifre.  Vertauschung  von  v  mit  /,  eine  Eigentiimlichkeit  des  anglonorm. 
Dialektes ;  s.  dariiber  Stimming,  S.  220. 

127  Bessere  mauveise  und  vgl.  Anm.  74. 

135  brusa.  Vgl.  engl.  to  bruise;  Busch,  Laut-  und  Formenlehre  der  Anglonor- 
mannischen  Sprache  des  xiv.  Jahrhunderts  (Greifswald,  1887)  belegt  noch  bniseroy, 
debruse,  debruserent,  debrusa  (stets  in  unbetonter  Silbe)  aus  Waddington  und  Urkun- 
den  der  Zeit. 


80  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

137  Der  Vers  ist  um  zwei  Silben  zu  lang. 

146  Etwa  dame  einzufiigen. 

147  Nach  humeyne  ist  e  einzufiigen. 

157  aleggance,  fur  alejance  'allegeance,  allegement.'  Wegen  g  (hier  geminiert, 
s.  Anm.  27)  zur  Bezeichnung  des  Lautes  dz  vgl.  Stimming,  Boeve,  S.  237. 

163  armors  zeigt  (wenn  nicht  Versehen  des  Schreibers)  unorganisches  r,  das  sich 
nicht  selten  in  anglonorm.  Hss.  findet ;  s.  Stimming,  Boeve,  S.  215. 

178  Das  y  in  ckayere  ist  hiatustilgend ;  vgl.  Stimming,  Boeve,  S.  237. 

J.  PRIEBSCH. 

WlEN. 

(Fortsetzung  folgt.) 


MISCELLANEOUS   NOTES. 

BEN   JONSON   AND   THE   CARDINAL  DUPERRON. 

BEYOND  a  scandalous  anecdote  equally  discreditable  to  all  parties 
concerned,  our  knowledge  of  Jonson's  visit  to  France  in  1613,  as 
tutor  to  young  Raleigh,  is  confined  to  two  brief  sentences  of  the 
Conversations.  The  more  important  of  these  (§  iv)  reports  him  as 
having  declared  '  That  he  told  Cardinal  de  [sic]  Perron,  at  his  being 
in  France,  anno  1613,  who  shew  [sic]  him  his  translations  of  Virgill, 
that  they  were  naught.'  No  further  light  has  been  thrown,  so  far  as 
we  know,  by  the  biographers  of  either  Jonson  or  the  Cardinal  upon  the 
intercourse  of  these  two  eminent  scholars,  or  upon  the  interview  which 
this  lively  declaration  not  improbably  brought  to  an  abrupt  close.  The 
following  facts,  however,  indicate  a  special  reason  for  the  Cardinal's 
readiness  to  '  show '  his  translations,  and  this  particular  translation,  to 
his  English  visitor. 

Duperron,  then  at  the  height  of  his  power,  was  on  friendly  terms 
with  the  great  Huguenot  scholar,  Isaac  Casaubon,  then  a  refugee  in 
England,  and  high  in  the  favour  of  James.  Though  now  the  most 
redoubtable  champion  of  Catholic  orthodoxy  in  France,  he  had  been 
born  and  bred  a  Huguenot;  and  if  it  could  by  no  means  be  said  of 
him,  as  of  Jonson,  that  he  was  '  for  any  religion  as  being  versed  in 
both,'  yet  he  had  thus  much  claim  to  be  called  tolerant,  that  he  sought 
to  annihilate  his  opponents  by  argument  and  not  by  fire,  and  pending 
their  annihilation  was  quite  willing  to  converse  with  them  civilly, 
discuss  the  merits  of  a  pretty  conjecture  in  the  classics,  and  accept 
or  reciprocate  good  offices  with  persons  in  power.  There  is  much  in  his 
record  which  suggests  a  seventeenth  century  Blougram — a  Blougram 
who  never  '  apologised,'  but  who  had  had,  as  a  young  man,  his  impru- 
dent moments,  in  which  a  not  dissimilar  intellectual  detachment  may 
be  discerned.  Casaubon  had  been  the  subject  of  his  repeated  and 
M.  L.  R.  iv.  6 


82  Miscellaneous  Notes 

sustained  assaults,  which  had  so  far  succeeded  that  the  shy  and  peace- 
loving  recluse  had  withdrawn  from  many  of  the  positions  held  by 
Calvinistic  orthodoxy,  and  was  freely  branded  as  a  weakling  or  even 
a  traitor  by  the  Huguenot  stalwarts.  But  a  substantial  residuum 
remained  which  he  refused  to  surrender.  The  two  men  had  how- 
ever their  interest  in  the  classics  in  common ;  for  Duperron,  not  to 
be  compared  with  Casaubon  in  weight  of  learning,  was  a  brilliant 
writer  and  orator,  accomplished  in  the  antique  modes  of  panegyric, 
necrologue,  satire,  and  a  facile  and  fluent  translator  of  Latin  verse. 
After  Casaubon's  prudent  withdrawal  to  England,  accordingly,  the 
would-be  shepherd  and  the  all  but  hopelessly  lost  sheep  maintained 
an  amicable  correspondence. 

In  1612,  the  year  before  Jonson's  visit  to  France,  Duperron  sent 
to  his  correspondent  in  England  a  specimen  of  a  translation  from  the 
First  Book  of  the  Aeneid.  Casaubon  showed  the  letter,  and  presumably 
the  translation  also,  to  the  king,  who  expressed  the  desire  to  have 
a  copy  for  himself — a  hint  promptly  conveyed  to  the  writer.  The 
Cardinal's  reply  appears  to  have  been  thought  worth  stealing;  it 
was  surreptitiously  printed,  translated  into  English  and  published  in 
London,  with  the  title:  'A  Letter  written  from  Paris  by  the  Lord 
Cardinal  of  Peron  to  M.  Casaubon  in  England.  Translated  out  of 
the  French.  1612.'  In  it,  after  excusing  himself  for  delays  due  to 
ill-health,  and  thanking  Casaubon  for  showing  his  letter  to  the  king, 
and  'procuring  for  him  some  part  of  his  favour,'  he  proceeds:  'As  for 
the  Translation  of  Virgil's  verse,  wherof  you  say  his  Majesty  desired 
a  Copy,  that  being  lost  which  before  I  sent  you,  I  must  defer  for  some 
days  the  performance  of  this  duty,  for  that  I  have  caused  it  to  be 
printed  again,  with  an  addition  of  one  part  of  the  fourth  [Book  of  the 
jfineid]'  He  will  presently,  he  adds,  send  a  copy  for  Casaubon  to 
present  to  James  in  his  name. 

A  few  months  later,  probably  in  November  or  December,  1612, 
Jonson  arrived  in  Paris.  He  probably  brought  some  kind  of  intro- 
duction, and  it  would  be  obvious  to  conjecture  that  this,  in  Duperron's 
case,  was  provided  by  Casaubon.  This  is  of  course  possible.  But  we 
know  that  Casaubon's  life  in  London  was  extremely  recluse,  that  he 
confessed  to  an  acquaintance  with  only  two  Englishmen,  and  that 
Jonson  was  not  one  of  these.  It  is  apparent,  however,  that  the 
French  Blougram  was  not  likely  to  be  indisposed  to  meet,  and  even 
to  receive  with  favour,  this  redoubtable  '  literary  man,'  renegade  from 
the  Catholic  church  though  he  was.  To  Jonson,  on  his  part,  the  repu- 


Miscellaneous  Notes  83 

tation  of  Duperron  must  have  been  familiar.  He  had  been  the  guest 
for  five  years,  during  his  Catholic  time,  of  Esm6  d'Aubigny,  who 
had  grown  up  in  France  during  the  years  in  which  Duperron  had 
achieved  his  triumphs  in  the  service  of  the  Catholic  church.  He 
probably  knew  that  the  future  Cardinal  had  been  chosen  to  pronounce 
the  funeral  Eloge  over  Ronsard.  It  is  clear  in  any  case  that  the 
Cardinal  received  him  in  his  house  and  showed  some  concern  for  his 
good  opinion.  Naturally  enough  he  brought  out  the  translation  which 
had  just  won  so  flattering  a  notice  from  the  learned  English  king,  to 
receive  the  applause  of  his  yet  more  learned  subject.  The  result,  to  a  great 
ecclesiastic,  wit  and  courtier,  whose  career  had  been  a  series  of  intellectual 
triumphs,  and  who  was  accustomed  to  be  treated  with  a  deference  not 
due  merely  to  his  rank,  must  have  been  highly  disconcerting.  Jonson's 
uncompromising  verdict  did  indeed  violate  not  merely  French  but 
most  other  standards  of  good  breeding.  In  spite,  however,  of  the 
obvious  touch  of  bravery  in  the  story,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  it  conveys  substantially  what  Jonson  said.  Like  many  other  men 
of  robust  candour,  he  was  capable  of  monstrous  flattery  on  occasion. 
But  literary  offences  more  surely  than  any  others  called  out  the 
implacable  spirit  of  censorship  in  him ;  and  translation  executed  on 
the  wrong  principles  more  surely  than  other  literary  offences.  The 
Cardinal's  versions  were  free  and  facile.  Jonson  held  to  the  opposite 
principle  of  severe  literalism,  a  principle  which  it  must  be  owned  his 
practice  was  far  from  justifying. 

The  date  of  Jonson's  return  from  France  is  unknown.  But  the 
terminus  ad  quern  is  not  so  late  as  has  commonly  been  supposed.  He 
'  had  taken  no  part  in  the  festivities  at  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  marriage, 
1613  February,'  says  Mr  Fleay  (Biog.  Chron.  I  350),  '  but  did  so  in  that 
of  Carr,  Earl  of  Somerset,  1613  Dec.'  But  at  this  latter  date  he  had 
been  back  in  London  for  six  months.  For,  as  my  colleague  Mr  Simpson 
has  noted,  he  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  fire  which  destroyed  the  Globe. 
*  I  saw  (the  Globe)  with  two  poor  chambers  taken  in,'  he  says  in  the 
Execration.  And  the  Globe  is  known  from  several  contemporary  letters 
to  have  been  destroyed  on  the  29th  of  June. 

C.  H.  HERFORD. 

MANCHESTER. 


6—2 


84  Miscellaneous  Notes 


A  NOTE  ON  'KING  LEAR.' 

Dr  Perrett  in  his  Story  of  King  Lear  has  shown,  I  think  conclusively, 
that  several  of  the  scenes  in  Shakespeare's  Lear  have  been  wrongly 
placed  by  all,  or  nearly  all  the  editors.  I  wish  to  add  another  instance. 

Since  Pope  every  editor,  I  believe  without  exception,  has  assigned 
the  action  of  the  second  scene  of  the  first  act  to  '  Gloucester's  Castle ' ; 
and  by  so  doing  the  editors  have  gratuitously  introduced,  in  plot  and 
characterisation,  improbabilities  and  inconsistencies  which  the  critics 
have  not  been  slow  to  point  out1.  The  only  reason  for  selecting  Glouces- 
ter's Castle  as  the  place  of  action  appears  to  be  that  the  scene  in  which 
the  Gloucester  interest  is  next  resumed  (II,  i)  is  undoubtedly  laid  there. 
But  there  is  nothing  in  the  story  or  the  text  which  requires  the  two 
scenes  to  be  in  the  same  place.  On  the  other  hand  the  text  furnishes 
evidence  both  negative  and  positive  that  the  place  of  action  in  I,  ii  is 
the  same  as  that  in  I,  i,  namely  '  Lear's  Court.' 

With  no  scenic  artist  to  aid  imagination,  the  impression  of  change 
of  place  on  the  Elizabethan  stage  could  be  conveyed  to  the  audience 
only  in  one  of  two  ways,  either  by  a  sign-board,  or  by  some  definite 
indication  in  the  course  of  the  dialogue.  Shakespeare,  I  believe,  invari- 
ably adopted  the  second  alternative,  either  by  preparing  the  audience 
in  a  previous  scene  for  a  shifting  of  the  action,  or  by  a  sufficiently  clear 
allusion  to  place  in  the  opening  lines  of  the  scene  itself.  Failing  indica- 
tions of  this  sort — as  in  the  present  instance — the  inference  is  that  no 
change  is  intended. 

On  this  negative  ground  we  should  perhaps  be  justified  in  discarding 
Pope's  interpolation  as  at  least  unnecessary.  But  the  scene  supplies 
evidence  of  a  positive  nature.  After  Edmund's  soliloquy,  which  opens 
the  scene,  and  which  contains  no  reference  to  place,  Gloucester  enters. 
in  evident  agitation : 

Glo.     Kent  banifh'd  thus  ?  and  France  in  choller  parted  ? 
And  the  King  gone  to  night  ?   Prefcrib'd  his  powre, 
Confin'd  to  exhibition  1    All  this  done 
Vpon  the  gad  1 

Surely  these  exclamations  are  somewhat  strange  if  we  are  to  imagine 
that,  since  Gloucester  heard  the  news  which  now  so  moves  him,  he  and 
his  family  have  leisurely  journeyed  down  from  the  court  to  the  country. 
On  the  other  hand  the  agitation  is  natural  enough  if  we  suppose — as. 

1  Compare,  for  example,  Bradley's  Shakespearean  Tragedy,  pp.  256 — 7,  305. 


Miscellaneous  Notes  85 

but  for  Pope  we  should  suppose — that  Gloucester  enters  directly  from 
the  council-chamber  where  he  has  just  learnt  the  full  particulars  of 
Kent's  banishment  (he  was  not  present  when  the  sentence  was  pro- 
nounced), and  has  heard  of  the  quarrel  with  France  and  of  the  departure 
of  Lear. 

The  rest  of  the  scene  contains  not  a  word  to  warrant  the  assumption 
that  the  place  is  Gloucester's  Castle,  and  that  the  characters  who 
appear  in  the  scene,  Gloucester,  Edmund,  and  Edgar,  are  all  living 
together  under  the  same  roof;  whereas  the  contrary  supposition,  that 
the  scene  is  still  Lear's  Court,  and  that  Gloucester  and  his  two  sons 
have  temporary  and  separate  lodgings  in  different  parts  of  the  city 
where  the  Court  has  been  held,  not  only  does  not  conflict  with,  but  is 
clearly  suggested  by,  the  text.  The  latter  hypothesis  has  the  further 
advantage  that  it  completely  acquits  the  poet  of  the  most  serious  charge 
brought  against  the  play  on  the  score  of  flaws  in  construction  and  in- 
consistency in  characterisation.  The  last  consideration,  indeed,  is  the 
sole  justification  of  a  somewhat  lengthy  note  on  this  subject. 

In  the  text,  we  may  note  especially  the  following :  Gloucester's  demand 
and  Edmund's  pretended  ignorance  as  to  Edgar's  whereabouts — '  Where 
is  he ? '  'I  do  not  well  know,  my  Lord.'. . .' Find  out  this  Villain,  Edmond, 
it  fhall  lofe  thee  nothing,  do  it  carefully.'  Edmund's  comment  on 
Edgar's  opportune  appearance  :  '  Pat :  he  conies  like  the  Cataf  trophe  of 
the  old  Comedie.'  All  this  is  not  a  little  curious  if  the  scene  of  action 
is  a  country  residence  in  which  the  three  persons  concerned  are  living, 
in  daily  intercourse  with  one  another  and  consequently  sufficiently  in- 
formed of  each  other's  movements.  Even  more  determining  is  the 
conversation  between  the  two  brothers:  'When  faw  you  my  Father  last?' 
'  The  night  gone  by.'  '  Spake  you  with  him  ? '  'I,  two  houres  together.' 
'  Parted  you  in  good  terms  ?  Found  you  no  difpleafure  in  him  by 
word,  nor  countenance ? '  'At  my  entreaty  forbeare  his  prefence. .  .1  pray 
you  have  a  continent  forbearance... retire  with  me  to  my  lodging... 
there's  my  key :  if  you  do  ftirre  abroad,  goe  arm'd.' 

Besides  the  explicit  mention  of  the  '  lodging '  which  clearly  suggests, 
if  it  does  not  actually  prove,  that  Edmund  at  least  is  not  at  the  time 
living  with  his  father,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Edmund  nowhere  in  the 
scene  urges  Edgar  to  fly  his  father's  house,  but  merely  to  forbear  his 
presence1.  A  much  weaker  understanding  than  Edgar's  would  have 

1  'Forbear'  is  explained  'withdraw';  and  parallel  uses  are  cited.  The  adjective 
'  continent '  is  however  against  this  meaning  in  the  present  passage.  '  Have  a  continent 
forbearance '  must  mean  '  Patiently  keep  away.'  'Patiently  run  away '  is  scarcely  sense. 


86  Miscellaneous  Notes 

recognised  that  flight  could  only  confirm  suspicion  and  a  far  duller- 
witted  villain  than  Edmund  would  have  been  quick  enough  to  interpret 
it  in  that  light  as  Edmund  never  does.  Similarly  the  other  alleged 
improbabilities,  marks  of  carelessness  or  indifference  to  dramatic  fit- 
ness, vanish  with  the  removal  of  Pope's  stage-direction.  Given  the 
conditions  '  a  credulous  father,'  knowing  and  seeing  little  of  his  sons1, 

a  Brother  Noble, 

Whofe  nature  is  fo  farre  from  doing  harmes, 
That  he  fufpects  none — 

and  the  bastard's  plot  has  every  chance  of  success.  Even  the  device  of 
the  letter  thrown  in  at  the  casement — a  trick  too  thin  to  deceive  even 
the  credulous  Gloucester  if  the  supposed  writer  is  himself  a  member  of 
the  household — is  on  the  other  hypothesis  probable  enough.  Edmund,' 
it  should  also  be  noted,  has  successfully  imitated  his  brother's  hand- 
writing2. The  apparently  reluctant  witness  borne  against  one  son  by 
another  no  less  loved  and  trusted  (cf.  I,  i,  20),  and  the  damning  evidence 
of  handwriting,  are  more  than  sufficient  to  outweigh,  in  a  mind  already 
predisposed  by  superstition  (i,  ii,  115,  et  sq.)  to  believe  anything  how- 
ever monstrous,  the  absence  of  all  intelligible  motives  for  the  crime 
imputed.  It  is  all  thoroughly  in  the  character.  With  Edgar  Edmund's 
course  is  simple.  He  has  merely  to  tell  the  truth,  suppressing  that  part 
of  it  which  his  brother's  '  foolish  honesty '  would  never  suspect,  and  to 
recommend  a  policy  the  prudence  of  which  Edgar's  practical  understand- 
ing must  immediately  recognise.  Time  plainly  is  a  better  cure  for 
Gloucester's  unreasonableness  than  any  expostulation ;  if  violence  be 
threatened  Edgar's  own  lodging  is  obviously  unsafe ;  and  the  advice  to 
take  precautions  against  assassins  lying  in  wait  at  street  corners  and  in 
alleys,  is  only  natural.  Edmund's  conduct  at  this  part  of  the  play  is, 
accordingly,  not  glaringly  improbable,  a  blot  in  the  play  to  be  condoned 
in  consideration  of  excellences  other  than  constructive.  His  'practifes 
ride  eafie ' ;  they  are  admirably  adapted  to  the  character  of  his  victims, 
while  they  at  the  same  time  give  him  complete  command  of  the  situa- 
tion. The  strictures  of  the  critics  may  stand  as  against  Pope — not  as 
against  Shakespeare. 

MARK  HUNTER. 
RAJAHMUNDRY,  INDIA. 

1  Edmund  'hath  bin  out  nine  yeares,  and  away  he  shall  againe'  (i.  i.  34),  and  of 
Edgar's  movements  here  and  later  (cf.  n.  i.  98  etc.)  Gloucester  clearly  knows  nothing. 

2  Cf.  i.  ii,  'GZo. — It  is  his.'     Professor  Bradley  has  perhaps  overlooked  these  words. 
He  remarks:    'Gloucester  appears   to  be   unacquainted   with   his   son's  handwriting.' 
(Shakespearean  Tragedy,  p.  257. ) 


Miscellaneous  Notes  87 


THE  DATE  OF  BREWER'S  '  LOVE-SICK  KING.' 

In  his  courteous  review  of  my  edition  of  Brewer's  play  Prof.  Moore 
Smith  has  drawn  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  within  a  hundred  lines 
of  The  Love-sick  King  there  are  two  snatches  of  songs  that  occur  also  in 
The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle.  I  had  overlooked  one,  and  said  in 
my  preface  that  not  too  much  importance  must  be  attached  to  the  fact 
that  the  same  song  occurs  in  the  two  plays.  Since  writing  this  preface 
I  have  made  a  discovery  which  compels  us  to  place  The  Love-sick  King 
after  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle, 

On  p.  362  of  The  Modern  Language  Review  n,  Prof.  Moore  Smith 
points  out  that  the  following  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  act 
of  The  Love-sick  King, '  Be  gone,  be  gone,  my  Juggy,  my  Puggy,  be  gone, 
my  Love,  my  Dear,  iny  money  is  gone,  and  ware  I  have  none,  but  one 
poor  Lambskin  here,'  agree  very  closely  with : 

Begone,  begone,  my  Juggy,  my  Puggy, 
Begone,  my  love,  my  dear  ! 

The  weather  is  warm, 

'Twill  do  thee  no  harm : 
Thou  canst  not  be  lodged  here. 

The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  nr,  5. 

Now,  in  the  appendix  to  Heywood's  Rape  of  Lucrece  there  is  a 
'  Second  Song '  consisting  of  four  stanzas.  The  first  two,  which  only 
concern  us  here,  run  as  follows  : 

Arise,  arise,  my  Juggy,  my  Puggy, 

Arise,  get  up,  my  dear  ; 
The  weather  is  cold,  it  blows,  it  snows  ; 

Oh,  let  me  be  lodged  here. 

Begone,  begone,  my  Willy,  my  Billy, 

Begone,  begone,  my  dear  ; 
The  weather  is  warm,  'twill  do  thee  no  harm  ; 

Thou  canst  not  be  lodged  here. 

It  is  evident  that  the  text  in  Hey  wood  represents  the  original  form : 
the  lover  comes  to  his  lady's  house  and  bids  her  arise,  calling  her  his 
'  Juggy.'  In  reply  she  bids  him  begone,  calling  him  her  '  Willy,'  her 
'  Billy.'  Merrythought  in  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  who  ad- 
dresses the  song  to  his  wife,  intentionally  changes  the  first  line  to 
'  Begone,  begone,  my  Juggy,  my  Puggy.'  Anywhere  else  this  change 
would  be  meaningless,  and  if  these  words  occur  in  any  other  place  they 
must  be  a  quotation  of  the  passage  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  and 
cannot  be  a  quotation  from  the  original  song.  It  is  improbable  that 


88  Miscellaneous  Notes 

Brewer  should  have  borrowed  from  a  writer  who  in  his  turn  borrowed 
from  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  I  believe  we  may  assume  that  Brewer's 
play  was  written  some  seven  or  eight  years  later  than  I  suggested,  if 
the  date  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  play  is  1610-11  (Prof.  Moorman's 
conjecture),  or  two  or  three  years  later  if  it  was  written  in  1607 
(Mr  Macaulay's  date). 

A.  E.  H.  SWAEN. 
GRONINGEN. 


WILLIAM  KEMPE. 

It  has  been  generally  supposed  by  recent  writers  that  Kempe  was 
the  '  Will,  my  lord  of  Lester's  jesting  plaier '  referred  to  in  Sir  Philip 
Sidney's  letter  to  Sir  Francis  Walsingham  of  March  24,  1586,  from 
Utrecht  (Harl.  MS.  287,  f.  1)  as  carrying  despatches  from  the  Low 
Countries  to  London;  and,  if  so,  this  is  the  earliest  notice  of  the  famous 
actor  hitherto  upon  record.  I  think,  however,  that  he  is  to  be  found 
in  the  following  passage  of  a  letter  of  Thomas  Doyley  to  the  Earl  of 
Leicester  himself  from  Calais  on  November  12,  1585  (T.  Wright,  Queen 
Elizabeth  and  her  Times,  ii,  268  from  Cotton  MS.  Galba,  G.  viii) : — 

'There  remayneth  in  Dunkerk. .  .also  Mr  Kemp,  called  Don  Guli- 
helmo.' 

E.  K.  CHAMBERS. 
LONDON. 


'MERRY  WIVES  OF  WINDSOR/  i,  iii,  93. 

There  is  a  curious  mistake  in  the  Cambridge  Shakespeare  and  many 
other  modern  editions.  The  First  Quarto  has 

'Fal.     Here  sirrha  beare  me  these  letters  titely, 
Saile  like  my  pinnice  to  the  golden  shores  : 
Hence  slaves,  avant.     Vanish  like  hailstones,  goe. 
Falstaffe  will  learne  the  humor  of  this  age, 
French  thrift  you  rogue,  my  selfe  and  scirted  Page. 

Exit  Falstaffe,  awd  the  Boy.' 

The  First  Folio  also  has  '  skirted  Page ' ;  but  the  editors  substitute 
'  skirted  page,'  apparently  supposing  that  Falstaff  was  thinking,  not  of 
his  intended  mistress,  but  of  the  boy  Robin.  Robin,  however,  did  not 
wear  skirts. 

E.  K.  CHAMBERS. 

LONDON. 


Miscellaneous  Notes  89 


R.  P.  GILLIES  AND  GOETHE. 

Under  the  date  June  22,  1821,  in  Goethe's  Diary  is  to  be  found  the 
entry:  'Friih  Mr  Gillies  from  Edinburgh1.'  The  interview  which  seems 
to  have  hitherto  escaped  collectors  of  Goethe's  conversations,  is  to  be 
found  described  in  Gillies'  Memoirs  of  a  Literary  Veteran,  including 
Sketches  and  Anecdotes  of  the  most  distinguished  Literary  Characters 
from  1794  to  1849  (3  vols.,  London,  1851),  in,  pp.  13—16.  Although 
what  Gillies  has  to  say  does  not  throw  much  fresh  light  on  Goethe's 
personality,  it  is  perhaps  worth  recording  as  a  contribution  to  an 
interesting  and  still  unwritten  chapter  of  Goethe's  Weimar  life,  his 
relations  to  the  many  English  visitors  and  residents.  Gillies,  who  had 
travelled  from  Scotland  by  way  of  Hamburg,  Berlin,  Dresden  and 
Weissenfels — where  he  visited  Milliner,  whose  Schuld  he  had  translated 
— reached  Weimar  about  the  middle  of  June.  He  had  neglected  to 
provide  himself  with  an  introduction  to  Goethe,  but  he  called  and  was 
at  once  received.  After  commenting  on  the  severe  simplicity  of  Goethe's 
reception  room,  Gillies  describes  the  poet  as  having, 

in  figure,  contour  of  features,  mode  of  speech  (or  penchant  to  taciturnity),  and 
demeanour,  a  certain  indefinable  resemblance  to  John  Kemble....As  the  door  opened 
from  the  farther  end  of  the  reception-room,  and  his  excellency's  tall,  gaunt  form, 
wrapped  in  a  long,  blue  surtout,  which  hung  loosely  on  him,  slowly  advanced,  he  had 
veritably  the  air  and  aspect  of  a  revenant.  His  was  not  an  appearance,  but  an 
apparition.  Evidently  and  unmistakeably  he  had  belonged  to  another  world  which 
had  long  since  passed  away ;  but  malgre  attenuation,  and  some  traces  of  impaired 
health  (such  as  a  yellow  suffusion  of  the  eyeballs)  there  were,  nevertheless,  indications 
that  the  smouldering  fire  of  youth  yet  lingered  in  that  gaunt  frame,  and  that  though 
he  had  belonged  to  a  past  world,  he  was  yet  perfectly  able  to  sustain  a  part  in  the 
present.... Goethe  advanced  in  profound  silence,  in  a  mood,  seemingly,  of  utter 
abstraction,  and  after  the  manner  of  ghosts  in  general,  he  waited  to  be  spoken  to !... 
I  had  set  my  heart  on  seeing  Goethe,  but  did  not  for  a  moment  imagine  that  my 
communications  could  have  any  interest  for  him,  and  in  sheer  desperation  I  contrived 
to  tell  him  this  much,  then  fortunately  made  allusions  again  to  our  long  journey, 
•and  of  my  great  wish  to  settle  somewhere,  at  Weirnar,  for  example. 

As  it  happened,  the  best  of  diplomatists  could  not  have  managed  better.  This 
was  a  practical  point  to  which  (with  a  half  smile  at  my  broken  German)  he  answered 
readily,  that  nothing  could  be  more  easy ;  Weimar  was  not  over-populous,  and  he 
believed  that  Hoffmann,  the  court  bookseller,  was  at  that  moment  charged  to  dispose 
of  a  house  and  garden  at  a  very  low  rent.  To  this  he  added:  'In  days  of  yore, 
there  were  Englishmen  here,  who  passed  their  time  pleasantly  enough,  and  some  of 
whom  I  remember  with  esteem  and  regret.'  I  ventured  to  inquire  whether  Sir 

1  Goethe's  Tagebucher  (Weimar  Edition),  viii,  p.  71.  On  Gillies  see  the  article  in 
D.  N.  B.  He  was  born  near  Arbroath  in  1788  and  died  in  London  in  1858  ;  his  last  years 
were  darkened  by  ill-success  and  repeated  imprisonment  for  debt.  His  essays  on  German 
and  Scandinavian  literature  appeared  mainly  in  Blackwood's  Magazine  and  the  Foreign 
Quarterly  Revieic,  and  helped  in  no  small  degree  to  make  Grillparzer,  Milliner  and 
Oehlenschlager  known  in  English  literary  circles.  See  M.  Batt,  Gillies  and  the  Foreign 
Quarterly  Review  in  Modern  Language  Notes,  xvn  (1902). 


90  Miscellaneous  Notes 

Brooke  Boothby !  had  been  among  the  chosen  few  ?  This  question  was  a  lucky 
hit,  for  he  immediately  fixed  his  eyes  with  searching  expression,  and  spoke  with 
animation  : 

'I  saw  more  of  him,'  said  he,  'than  any  other  English  resident,  and  regretted  his 
departure  the  most.  You  knew  him  perhaps?' 

'Very  intimately.' 

'Is  he  still  alive?' 

'I  believe  so.  But  he  left  Scotland  in  1815,  and  since  then,  I  have  not  received 
any  letters  from  him.' 

'Sir  Brooke  was  a  pleasant  neighbour,  and  friend  of  mine.  Was  hat  er  bey  Ihnen 
gemachtT  (What  was  he  about  in  Scotland?) 

'He  filled  up  his  time  after  his  own  fashion — wrote  a  good  deal,  especially  in 
verse,  dined  early,  and  in  the  afternoon  painted  in  water-colours.' 

'Has  he  ever  spoken  to  you  about  Weimar?' 

'  He  told  me  about  his  having  obtained  a  commission  in  the  Duke's  cavalry,  in 
order  to  have  the  privilege  of  appearing  at  Court  in  boots  instead  of  silk  stockings.' 

'  Gam  richtig  (very  true).  His  health  was  not  good :  he  complained  of  our  cold 
winters,  disliked  silk  stockings,  and  could  ride  better  than  he  danced.' 

This  important  fact  disposed  of,  I  mentioned  that  Sir  Brooke  always  had  beside 
him  a  first  edition  of  'Werther,'  and  a  few  other  German  books,  from  which  he  had 
made  some  translations,  and  that  one  of  these,  the  '  Genius  and  the  Bayadere,'  was, 
at  my  suggestion,  published  in  the  '  Edinburgh  Annual  Register2.' 

'  I  gave  him  those  books,'  said  his  Excellency, '  but  there  was  one  point  of  difference 
betwixt  us.  He  was  a  good  French  scholar,  but  never  would  take  the  trouble  of 
studying  our  language  so  as  to  comprehend  our  best  authors.  He  began  zealously — 
allein  es  mangelte  ihm  an  Ausdaur  (he  was  wanting  in  perseverance).  Another  of 
your  countrymen,  Mr  Mellish3,  was  in  that  respect  more  praiseworthy.' 

I  tried  to  introduce  other  literary  characters,  but  could  only  bring  him  thus  far, 
that  he  desired  to  be  particularly  informed  whether  Sir  Walter  Scott  had  quite 
recovered  his  health,  to  which  I  replied,  that  not  only  had  he  recovered,  but  seemed 
stouter  than  before ;  and  that  his  industry  was  unequalled  and  indomitable.  I  then 
endeavoured  to  speak  of  the  singular  influence  that  'Faust'  and  'Wilhelm  Meister' 
had  exercised  on  English  authors  ;  of  Lord  Byron's  debt  to  the  former  in  '  Manfred,' 
and  so  forth;  but  to  this  his  answers  were  in  a  tone  of  perfect  indifference.  He 
cared  not  a  straw  about  praise,  and  was  inaccessible  to  flattery.  About  twenty 

1  Sir  Brooke  BootLby,  Bart.,  of  Ashbourne  Hall,  Derbyshire,  died,  according  to  an 
obituary  notice  in  the  Gentleman '»  Magazine  for  April,  1824  (p.  370),  at  Boulogne  on 
January  23,   1824,   in  his  eightieth  year.     His  chief  claim  to  literary  fame  appears  to 
have  been  his  volume  of  poems  entitled  Sorrows,  Sacred  to  the  Memory  of  Penelope  [his 
six  year  old  daughter]  (1796) ;   but  he  also  translated  Racine's  Britannicus  (1803)  and 
published  two  volumes  of  Fables  and  Satires  (1809),  which  were  unfavourably  reviewed 
in  the  Quarterly  Review,  in  (1810),  pp.  43  ff.     On  his  connection  with  Edinburgh  see 
Gillies'  Memoirs,  n,  pp.  33  ff.     The  D.N.B.  (new  ed.,  u,  p.  853)  has  also  a  short  notice. 
A  remark  by  Gillies  himself  (I.e.,  n,  p.  38)  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  Boothby  had  been 
in  Weimar  about  1795 :  'he  visited  divers  German  courts  sojourning  longest  at  Weimar, 
where  he  was  in  habits  of  daily  intercourse  with  Goethe,  who  spoke  to  me  of  Sir  Brooke 
with  the  kindest  and  liveliest  recollection  twenty-six  years  afterwards.' 

2  Edinburgh  Annual  Register,  Vol.  n,  Pt.  2  (1809),  pp.  647  ff. 

3  Joseph  Charles  Mellish,  known  as  the  translator  of  Schiller's  Maria  Stuart  (1801), 
was  born  in  London  on  March  2,  1769,  and  spent  the  years  1797-1802  in  or  near  Jena 
and  Weimar.    The  correspondence  of  Goethe  and  Schiller  bears  testimony  to  the  friendly 
footing  on  which  he  stood  with  both  poets.     He  seems  also  to  have  translated  Hermann 
und  Dorothea  (Goethe  to  Schiller,  May  2,  1798),  but  this  was  not  published.     In  1798 
he  was  made  '  preussischer  Kammerherr.'     In  1802  he  was  appointed  English   charge 
d'affaires  to  the  King  of  the  Sicilies ;  but  in  1813  he  was  transferred  to  Hamburg.     He 
revisited  Goethe  in  1816  (Tag-  und  Jahreshefte,  Weimar  edition,  xxxvi,  p.  115),  and  died, 
as  representative  of  the  Hansa  towns  in  London,  on  September  18,  1823.     Besides  Mary 
Stuart,  he  published  Specimens  of  the  German  Lyric  Poets  (1823),  and  Gedichte  (in  German, 
English,  Greek,  and  Latin,  1818). 


Miscellaneous  Notes  91 

minutes  sufficed  for  our  audience ;  but  he  was  very  courteous  at  parting,  and  said 
he  should  rejoice  to  hear  that  I  could  meet  with  an  abode  at  Weimar  suitable  to  my 
finances  and  views. 

J.  G.  ROBERTSON. 

LONDON. 


MINOR  NOTES  ON  '  HAVELOK  THE  DANE.' 

1.  421.  Ne  hem  ne  dede  richelike  \>ebedde.  There  is  no  need,  with 
Skeat,  to  omit  the  second  ne ;  still  less,  with  Holthausen,  to  change  the 
word-order,  bebedde  is  simply  miswritten  for  bedde  which  occurs  in 
three  other  places  in  the  poem.  There  is  no  irregularity  in  the  metre : 
e  is  syncopated  often  enough  between  chief  and  secondary  stress. 

I.  722.     Ne  were  neuere  but  ane  hwile.     Skeat  supplies  it  before 
neuere.     Holthausen  emends  correctly  to  /ere[d]  but  unnecessarily  cuts 
away  the  ne  and  supplies  \ei.     Read  ne  were  ne  fered. 

II.  808,  1026.     also  heui  als  a  neth.     Is  Hupe's  interpretation  '  neat, 
young  ox '  certain  ?     '  Heavy  as  a  net '  seems  to  me  not  improbable. 
The  rime  proves  nothing,  of  course :  we  are  justified  in  assuming  the 
vowel  in  gret  to  be  short  through  analogy  with  the  comparative  form. 
Cf.  Morsbach,  MittelengL  Gram.,  54a  2. 

1.  1129.  Goldeborw  gret  and  yas  hire  ille.  Skeat  here  reads  was, 
translating  'it  was  ill  for  her.'  The  correct  reading  is  Stratmann's: 
gaf.  Cf.  1.  164,  He  greten  and  gouleden  and  gouen  hem  ille;  cf.  also 
Isumbras,  1.  315,  ]>e  ladi  gret  and  gaf  hire  ille.  But  the  meaning  is  not 
so  much  '  to  give  oneself  up  to  grief  (Skeat,  p.  168)  as  '  to  shew  or  put 
forward  one's  grief.'  I  am  informed  by  my  friend,  Mr  H.  W.  Ealwarda, 
Secretary  of  the  Frisian  Society  vof  London,  that  the  expression  is  still 
in  common  use  in  West-Frisian.  Of  a  malingering  soldier,  for  instance, 
is  said  Hi  yowt  him  siik  (oan),  and  the  expression  Hia  yoech  hiar  siik  is 
used  frequently  of  one  of  the  fair  sex. 

1.  1287.  But  on  on  \e  moste  hil.  Holthausen  changes  the  first  on  to 
one,  translating  '  ganz  allein ' :  Skeat  keeps  the  MS.  reading,  but  gives 
no  note  on  the  syntax.  The  construction,  after  all,  is  common  enough, 
particularly  in  the  phrase  oon  the  beste.  Cf.  also  ]>reo  \a  betstan  ele  in  the 
Blickling  Homilies  (E.E.T.S.,  p.  73).  But  the  well-known  line  si  muose 
toten  sehn  einen  den  liebesten  man  ought  to  have  warned  Holthausen. 

1.  1380.  Ne  forfarenfor  no  sinne.  I  am  unable  to  understand  on 
what  grounds  Holthausen  turns  the  pret.  partic.  into  an  indie,  and 
Skeat  inserts  may.  Is  it  possible  that  the  latter  scholar  is  here  polish- 


92  Miscellaneous  Notes 

ing  the  metre  again  ?  In  11.  1284,  1304,  1376  he  does  not  hesitate  to 
change  the  word-order  for  this  purpose,  and  the  number  of  small  words 
he  has  to  insert  in  his  attempt  to  make  the  metre  of  Havelok  more 
regular  than  that  of  Chaucer's  Prologue,  is  legion. 

1.  1430.  Hauede  go  for  him  gold  ne  fe.  Here  it  is  Holthausen  that 
'  improves '  the  metre,  by  inserting  no  before  gold.  Skeat's  emendation 
to  go[n]  is  quite  unnecessary.  Cf.  Mi  gamun  is  al  go  (Die  engl.  Gregor- 
legende,  1.  104,  ed.  Schulz,  Konigsberg,  1876).  Cf.  also  haue  do  in 
1.  1805  of  Havelok,  where  the  form  is  fixed  by  the  rime  two. 

1.  2333.  \er  mouhte  men  se  hw  grim  greu  has  caused  unnecessary 
trouble  to  the  editors.  Skeat  will  read  Grim  and  gives  a  long  note  on 
'  scenic  representation ' :  does  he  mean  that  at  Havelok's  court  there  is 
presented  a  kind  of  play  of  Grim's  life-history  ?  Holthausen  emends 
violently  to  glam.  There  is  really  nothing  against  a  simple  interpreta- 
tion of  the  MS.  reading,  grim  with  the  meaning  anger,  strife,  is  common 
enough.  Cf.  Sir  Bevis:  'Thus  beginneth  grim  to  grow'  Alexander  and 
Dindim-us:  ')?ei  were  agrisen  of  his  grym  and  wende  greflpolie,'  Ywaine 
and  Gawin:  'To  him  he  stirt  with  birful  grim.'  The  line  refers,  of 
course,  to  the  bull  and  boar-baiting  just  above. 

Here  let  me  call  attention  to  the  word  mike,  a  parallel  form  to  mikel. 
Although  this  word,  as  far  as  I  know,  has  not  got  into  the  dictionaries, 
it  is  of  too  frequent  occurrence  to  be  set  aside  as  a  scribal  error  or  as  a 
'  ghost- word.'  mike  occurs  four  times,  mik  once,  in  Havelok :  in  every 
case  the  editors  emend  to  mikel.  The  word  mike  occurs  too  in  Genesis 
and  Exodus,  1.  292,  where  Morris  supplies  an  I.  A  good  instance  is 
to  be  found  in  Cursor  Mundi,  1.  26113,  where  in  place  of  and  is  als 
mikil  for  to  say  the  Cotton  MS.  reads  and  es  als  mikes  al  for  to  say. 
A  search,  which  I  have  not  undertaken,  would  doubtless  reveal  other 
examples. 

J.  H.  G.  GRATTAN. 
LONDON. 


DISCUSSIONS. 

MILTON   AND  SYLLABISM. 

The  papers  on  '  Milton's  Heroic  Line  considered  from  an  Historical 
Standpoint,'  by  Professor  Walter  Thomas,  which  appeared  in  the  num- 
bers of  this  Review  for  July  and  October  1907,  seem  to  me  models  of 
exact  study.  In  that  respect,  at  least,  they  may  be  ranked  with  the 
work  of  Mr  Robert  Bridges ;  higher  praise  no  one  could  desire.  The 
conclusions  reached  by  their  writer,  however,  are  so  remarkable  that 
some  further  examination  of  his  argument  seems  called  for  before  we 
can  accept  the  thesis  he  so  ably  defends. 

And,  first,  I  must  call  attention  to  a  point  about  which  he  is,  I 
think,  unintentionally  misleading.  He  quotes  (Vol.  II,  p.  303,  near  foot) 
Milton's  preface  to  Paradise  Lost,  and  makes  the  poet  affirm  that  one 
principal  element  of  his  verse  is  a  '  fit  quantity  of  syllables,'  assuming 
that  by  this  is  meant  a  fixed  number  of  syllables.  The  assumption  is 
made  in  the  next  sentence  but  one,  and  is  several  times  repeated. 
Surely  this  assumption  is  unfounded.  Milton  wrote  not  'a  fit  quantity' 
but  'fit  quantity,'  and  I  have  always  understood  the  words  to  mean 
suitable  sound  of  syllables,  'quantity '  being  used  in  its  familiar  technical 
sense.  The  indefinite  article  added  by  Prof.  Thomas,  and  quite  properly 
shown  by  him  to  form  no  part  of  the  original  sentence — for  it  is  outside 
the  quotation-mark1 — conveys  an  erroneous,  or  at  least  doubtful,  mean- 
ing. It  would  be  as  reasonable  to  imagine  that  '  apt  numbers '  refers 
to  an  invariable  number  of  syllables  in  a  line,  as  to  suppose  that  '  fit 
quantity '  does  so. 

Prof.  Thomas  must  not,  therefore,  assume  that  he  has  Milton's 
authority  for  saying  that  each  heroic  line  contains  ten  syllables,  neither 
more  nor  less ;  but  he  is  of  course  well  within  his  rights  in  seeking  to 
prove  that  this  is  so.  He  makes  the  attempt  with  great  ingenuity  and 
wide  range  of  example.  He  does  not,  indeed,  go  all  lengths  with 
Messrs  van  Dam  and  Stoffel,  or  with  those  pupils  of  Prof.  Bright  of 
Baltimore,  a  tractate  by  one  of  whom  is  reviewed  in  another  part  of  the 
number  which  contains  his  second  article  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  80).  He  admits 
variation  of  accent,  though  not  of  syllabic  number.  Even  as  regards  the 

1  On  p.  309,  1.  2,  however,  it  is  included  within  the  quotation-marks. 


94  Discussions 

latter,  he  recognises  (ibid.,  p.  19,  1.  9)  a  few  rare  exceptions  such  as 
(P.  L.,  viii,  649) : 

Thy  condescension,  and  shall  be  honoured  ever. 

These  he  considers  to  be  of  the  nature  of  exceptions  which  prove  the 
rule,  and  by  unsparing  use  of  contractions,  aphaeresis,  etc.,  he  tries  to 
establish  as  a  fixed  law  of  scansion  that  '  Milton  never  allows  his  line  to 
fall  short  of  or  to  exceed  ten  counted  syllables'  (ibid.,  p.  29,  1.  17). 

I  believe  such  a  view  to  be  nearer  the  truth  than  that  of  those  who 
find  in  Milton's  verse  only  wild  licence.  He  was  evidently  guided  by 
very  strict  principles  of  metre.  Beyond  doubt,  he  sought  to  draw 
tighter  bonds  which  had  been  unduly  relaxed.  Dramatic  blank  verse, 
even  by  Shakespeare  himself  and  far  more  by  his  followers,  had  been 
written  with  a  freedom  that  threatened  to  annihilate  the  distinction 
between  prose  and  metre.  Such  verse  would  have  ill  suited  Milton's 
majestic  strain.  He  achieved  his  statelier  measure  by  rejecting 
dramatic  laxity,  discarding  for  example  almost  entirely  the  distinctly 
hypermetrical  syllable  after  a  caesura.  But  to  argue  from  this  that  he 
returned  to  a  '  drumming  decasyllabon,'  and  that  every  syllable  which 
exceeds  typical  number  is  to  be  excluded  from  scansion,  seems  to  me 
pushing  conjecture  too  far. 

Appeal  is  made  to  Milton's  own  spelling.  That,  fortunately,  we  can 
test  for  ourselves  by  reference  to  Canon  Beeching's  facsimile  reprint 
(Clarendon  Press,  1900),  but  we  must  consider  it  as  a  whole. 
Prof.  Thomas  quotes  from  Comus  such  examples  as  count'nance  (1.  68), 
th'  Indian  (1.  139),  t'  whom  (1.  217).  But  he  does  not  quote  such  others 
as  eev'n  (1.  202),  unprincipl'd  (1.  367),  self -consumed  (1.  597),  where  the 
apostrophe  cannot  mean  entire  omission.  It  was  shown  long  ago  by 
Mr  Bridges  that  the  substitution  of  an  apostrophe  for  a  vowel,  in 
Milton's  very  elaborate  and  carefully  carried  out  system  of  spelling, 
does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  vowel  is  not  to  be  sounded;  this 
short  cut  to  certainty  is  therefore  closed  against  us. 

Besides,  if  Milton's  own  spelling  is  to  be  our  guide,  a  contrary 
verdict  must  be  given.  Comus  furnishes  many  such  examples  as 
feaverish  (1.  8),  groveling  (1.  53)  [Prof.  Thomas  quotes  this  as  grovling 
(p.  306,  1.  17),  so  must  fight  out  the  textual  question  with  Canon 
Beeching],  likeliest  (1.  90),  different  (1.  145),  frivolous  (1.  445),  innocent 
(1.  574).  If  we  are  to  go  by  spelling,  these  must  be  trisyllabic  sounds. 
Words  like  aereal,  ambrosial,  fiery,  glorious,  etc.,  are  of  course  disputable, 
and  mansion  (1.  2)  would  be  reckoned  a  dissyllable  by  most  critics.  It 
is  certainly  conceivable  that  different  may  have  been  sounded  as  two 
syllables,  but  to  believe  that  innocent  was  so  treated  requires  robust 
faith ;  Milton's  spelling  at  any  rate  presents  both  as  words  of  three 
syllables. 

These  instances  are  taken  from  Comus  merely  because  that  poem 
was  under  notice ;  Paradise  Lost  and  its  sequel  yield  a  like  result.  In 
them,  too,  we  have  the  same  elaborate  system  of  spelling,  and  though 
Milton  must  for  these  poems  have  trusted  others  to  carry  out  his 


Discussions  95 

instructions,  the  instructions  were  evidently  again  his  own.  P.  L.,  Bk.  i, 
shows  the  same  peculiar  rendering  of  words  like  manacl'd  (1.  426), 
dark'nd  (1.  599),  doubl'd  (616),  rifid  (687).  If  in  its  first  two  para- 
graphs we  find  Heav'n  and  heavnly,  tli  Aonian  and  tJi  upright,  we  also  find 
glory  above,  ethereal  sky,  prison  ordain  d.  Adventrous  (1.  13)  is  balanced 
by  tempestuous  (1.  77).  Ruin  takes  the  place  of  a  monosyllable  in  1.  91. 
Other  words  spelt  without  contraction  in  the  course  of  the  next  few 
pages  are  ignominy  and  shame  (1.  115),  glory  extinct  (1.  141),  conquerour 
(1.  143),  sulphurous  (1.  171),  groveling  (1.  280),  to  adore  (\.  323).  Such 
spellings  are  much  too  numerous  to  be  deemed  printers'  mistakes. 

Typography,  then,  is  inconclusive  of  the  question.  Nor  do  the 
historical  arguments  advanced  by  Prof.  Thomas  seem  more  decisive. 
He  urges  that  our  heroic  line  began  as  a  strict  decasyllabic,  on  French 
models.  Granted ;  but  the  question  is  how  long  our  poets  remained 
content  with  this  form.  He  quotes  definitions  by  early  metrists ;  but 
our  prosodians  have  always  tended  to  lay  down  rules  more  strict  than 
the  practice  of  our  great  singers  warranted.  He  argues  that  contraction 
of  words  was  commoner  then  than  now,  and  no  one  doubts  that  forms 
like  'gan  for  began  or  'sdain'd  for  disdained  represent  actual  omissions  of 
sound ;  but  does  this  justify  our  making  monosyllables  of  garden,  river, 
savour,  being,  and  a  host  of  similar  instances  ?  He  cites  (see  Vol.  in, 
p.  17  for  this  and  some  of  the  foregoing)  Jaques  in  As  you  like  it  and 
Pope  in  the  Essay  on  Criticism  as  identifying  ten  syllables  with  heroic 
metre;  but  such  phrases  might  be  used  to-day  without  carrying  the 
significance  ascribed  to  them.  When  we  read  '  My  brethren,  these 
things  ought  not  so  to  be,'  we  call  it  a  line  of  blank  verse,  not  because 
we  think  such  a  line  must  contain  ten  syllables  and  no  more — for 
modern  verse  has  taught  us  otherwise — but  because  this  is  the  normal 
type,  the  most  easily  recognisable  form.  Finally,  he  suggests  (ibid., 
p.  29)  that  'both  the  anapaestic  and  the  dactylic  rhythm  was  [were] 
practically  unknown  to  English  epic  and  dramatic  poetry '  at  this  date, 
being  '  almost  exclusively  confined  to  popular  songs  and  ballads,'  so  it  is 
unlikely  that  Milton  would  adopt  it  in  '  tlie  loftiest  form  of  verse.'  It 
will  be  well  to  consider  what  is  involved  in  this  suggestion. 

There  is  an  obvious  difference  between  the  '  triplet '  of  heroic  metre 
and  the  '  triple-time  foot '  of  our  so-called  dactylic  or  anapaestic  verse. 
In  the  latter,  three  syllables  are  given  their  ordinary  full  pronunciation; 
in  the  former,  they  occupy  the  time  normally  given  to  two  syllables. 
Milton  did  not,  I  think,  ever  intend  to  vary  the  time  of  his  feet.  His 
rejection,  already  mentioned,  of  the  hypermetrical  syllable  following  a 
caesura  seems  clear  proof  of  this.  In  Comus  we  find  many  lines  like  : 

And,  as  I  past,  I  worshipt ;   if  those  you  seek...  (1.  302). 

Alone,  and  helpless.     Is  this  the  confidence...  (1.  583). 

Hoot-bound,  that  fled  Apollo.     Fool,  do  not  boast...  (1.662). 

Such  lines  are  exceedingly  rare  in  the  Paradises,  so  rare  that  I  wonder 
Prof.  Thomas  does  not  ask  us  to  say  cond'scension  in  the  line  previously 
quoted,  no  more  difficult  a  contraction  than  some  which  he  recommends. 


96  Discussions 

But  while  such  lines  are  rare,  lines  which  can  be  read  with  the  rippling 
effect  of  true  triplets  are  exceedingly  numerous.  A  typical  instance  is 
(P.  L.,  I,  520) : 

Fled  over  Adria  to  th'  Hesperian  Fields. 

Even  supposing  that  th'  implies  real  elision,  and  that  Hesperian  can  be 
reduced  to  three  syllables  as  Hess-pere-yan,  there  remains  Adria,  which 
cannot  by  any  method  known  to  me  be  made  an  absolute  dissyllable. 
But  if  once  we  admit  a  trisyllabic  effect,  however  slight — the  tiniest 
ripple,  or  slur  if  you  like — in  even  one  word,  a  door  is  opened  through 
which  many  others  may  pass. 

The  word  slur,  properly  understood,  explains  much.  And  here 
historical  considerations  rightly  come  in.  We  know  that  Milton 
studied  Italian  verse.  From  it  he  probably  took  his  initial  'double 
trochee,'  though  Spenser  had  already  used  it,  as  in  that  line  beloved  of 
Leigh  Hunt  (F.  Q.,  I,  3,  7) : 

As  the  god  of  my  life.     Why  hath  he  me  abhorr'd? 

What  more  likely,  or  rather  more  certain,  than  that  Milton  had  noted 
the  effect  produced  by  two  Italian  vowels  melting  into  each  other,  and 
sought  to  copy  it  ?  Prof.  Thomas  of  course  knows  this,  and  duly  refers 
to  it  (Vol.  II,  p.  295 ;  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  20-1).  So  that  the  issue  really  is — 
Do  such  meltings  leave  us  with  two  vowels,  or  with  one  only  ? 

Here  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  question  is  not  what  happens 
in  Italian  speech — a  point  on  which  it  would  be  rash  for  foreigners  to 
dogmatise — but  what  takes  place  in  our  own  speech.  We  can  know 
only  what  happens  in  modern  language ;  whether  it  was  the  same  in 
Milton's  day  can  be  matter  only  of  inference.  Even  as  to  what  happens 
now  there  can  be  doubt.  I,  for  example,  do  not  think  there  is  actual 
fusion  in  our  pronunciation  of  'many  a'  (Vol.  in,  p.  21,  last  line).  As  a 
rule,  I  do  not  think  there  is  often  absolute  fusion  even  in  colloquial 
speech,  much  less  in  the  more  careful  utterance  with  which  we  naturally 
read  great  poetry.  Such  questions,  however,  are  undoubtedly  difficult, 
and  verse-critics  are  by  no  means  always  competent  to  deal  with  them. 
I  would  not  accept  the  pronouncement  of  Italian  grammarians  without 
sifting,  any  more  than  the  verdicts  of  our  own.  But  I  may  remind 
Prof.  Thomas  that  Dr  Abbott,  whom  he  cites  as  an  authority  on 
Shakespeare's  contractions,  cautiously  says :  '  In  many  cases  it  is  im- 
possible to  tell  whether  in  a  trisyllabic  foot  an  unemphatic  syllable  is 
merely  slurred  or  wholly  suppressed,  as  for  instance  the  first  e  in  "  dif- 
ferent " '  {Shakespearian  Grammar,  1872,  §  452).  Such  caution  is  wise. 

Our  English  speech-habit  is  notoriously  intolerant  of  elision.  So 
much  so,  that  we  are  tempted  to  slip  in  a  consonant  between  two  un- 
accented vowels,  and  even  educated  speakers  are  heard  to  say  'the 
idea(r)  of  it.'  Nor  are  we  fond  of  the  effect  produced  by  a  lightly 
accented  vowel  coming  immediately  before  a  more  heavily  accented  one, 
an  effect  satirised  in  Pope's  line : 

Tho'  oft  the  ear  the  open  vowels  tire. 


Discussions  97 

Midway  between  these  comes  the  'rippling'  effect  produced  by  pro- 
nouncing both  vowels  lightly  and  rapidly ;  is  not  this  what  is  meant  by 
'  slurring '  ?  It  is  an  effect  so  characteristically  English  that  one  can 
hardly  believe  Milton  renounced  it.  Whether  it  is  not  also  the  effect 
produced  by  Italian  pronunciation  of  words  like  Siena  and  duomo  I  must 
leave  others  to  say ;  Browning,  we  know,  accounted  the  former  of  these 
words  a  dissyllable1. 

I  do  not,  therefore,  suppose  that  Milton  intended  any  of  his  extra 
syllables  to  receive  full  weight  in  utterance.  What  Prof.  Saintsbury 
calls  'the  blessed  trisyllabic  swing  and  swell'  does  not  cause  any 
disturbance  of  verse- measure.  Our  grammarians  err  in  this  matter, 
because  they  count  by  syllables  instead  of  time-beats.  If  they  would 
be  content  to  say  that  every  line  of  Milton's  heroic  verse  contains  '  ten 
semi-peds,'  as  an  old  writer  calls  it — or  whatever  similar  phrase  they 
prefer — and  would  not  insist  that  each  '  semi-ped '  must  contain  one 
syllable  and  no  more,  discussion  would  be  simplified.  What  A  calls 
one  syllable  B  calls  two,  and  mere  logomachy  follows.  The  real  point 
is  whether  temporal  structure  is  affected,  and  to  say  that  three  syllables 
may  never  be  pronounced  in  the  normal  time  of  two  is  to  ignore  an 
exceedingly  common  form  of  utterance. 

Prof.  Thomas  will,  I  think,  have  much  sympathy  with  this  argument. 
He  opposes  (p.  22,  foot)  any  attempt  to  pronounce  '  No  advantage '  as 
nadvantage,  and  asks  that  it  be  sounded  '  No  'dvantage.'  What  is  this 
but  a  very  rapid  pronunciation  of  the  initial  a  ?  So  with  '  he  (e)ffected,' 
and  '  my  (a)dventure,'  later  in  the  same  paragraph.  Without  following 
him  through  all  his  numerous  examples,  one  may  ask  whether  the  prin- 
ciple now  suggested  does  not  secure  all  he  wants,  preserving  that 
'  regularity '  of  metre  for  which  he  rightly  contends. 

Historically,  the  case  for  this  trisyllabic  ripple  is  very  strong.  Side 
by  side  with  the  '  foreign '  imported  verse  there  was  always  the  older 
English  line  with  its  loose  array  of  syllables  punctuated  by  accent  and 
alliteration.  Would  not  our  poets  naturally  seek  to  engraft  on  the  new 
measure  somewhat  of  the  old  freedom  ?  That  they  did  so,  even  to  excess, 
has  been  already  pointed  out.  It  is  Milton's  glory  that  he  restricted 
this  tendency,  and  showed  how  it  was  possible  to  unite  strict  measure 
with  sufficient  and  admirable  freedom.  But  strict  measure  does  not 
imply  syllable-counting,  and  any  attempt  to  make  it  do  so  must  be 
strenuously  resisted. 

For,  such  an  attempt  sacrifices  effects  which  one  feels  sure  Milton 
deliberately  sought.  The  famous  line  (P.L.,  vii,  411)  describing  the 
great  sea-monsters  as : 

Wallowing  unwieldie,  enormous  in  thir  Gate... 
(I  copy  the  original  spelling),  loses  its  descriptive  vividness  if  we  truncate 

1  Whoever  to  scan  this  is  ill  able 
Forgets  the  town's  name's  a  dissyllable. 

Pacchiarotto,  §  xv. 


M.  L.  R.  IV. 


98  Discussions 

the  first  two  words,  which  it  will  be  observed  Milton's  own  spelling  does 
not  do.  That  other  famous  couplet  (P.L.,  m,  1021-2): 

So  he  with  difficulty  and  labour  hard 
Mov'd  on,  with  difficulty  and  labour  hee... 

becomes  commonplace  if  we  make  four  syllables  of  diff-i-cult-yand. 
Even  such  an  ordinary  line  as  (P.L.,  I,  770): 

Poure  forth  thir  populous  youth  about  the  Hive... 

is  less  rhythmically  expressive  if  we  somehow  reduce  populous  to  a 
dissyllable.  And  I  must  really  protest  against  the  assertion  (Vol.  II, 
p.  307)  that  highest  is  a  monosyllable  in  (P.R.,  iv,  106): 

Aim  at  the  highest,  without  the  highest  attain'd... 

and  that  'any  other  scansion  resolves  the  verse  into  prose.'  It  is  a 
singular  conception  of  verse  which  makes  it  depend  on  absolute  mono- 
tony of  rhythm,  and  there  is  no  need  to  introduce  any  such  conception. 
I  am,  however,  quite  willing  to  admit  that  Milton  may  have  written 
by  rule  as  well  as  by  ear.  Mr  Bridges,  we  know,  holds  that  he  '  came 
to  scan  his  verses  one  way  and  read  them  another,'  and  sought  '  to  keep 
blank  verse  decasyllabic  by  means  of  fictions'  (Milton's  Prosody,  1901, 
pp.  18  and  19).  And  I  think  it  highly  probable  that  Milton  relied  on 
concurrence  of  vowels  to  justify  many  of  his  lines.  This  will  explain 
harsh-seeming  phrases  like  express  thee  unblam'd,  into  utter  darkness,  no 
in-grateful  food,  virtue  in  her  shape,  and  should  be  remembered  in  dealing 
with  the  crucial  line  (P.R.,  in,  586): 

Shoots  invisible  vertue  even  to  the  deep... 

where,  by  the  by,  one  would  have  expected  to  find  the  spelling  evn. 
Some  such  doctrine  of  elision  seems  needed  in  connection  with  the 
frequent  slurring  of  -ue  in  particular.  And  it  is  easily  admitted  when 
we  recall  how  persistent  this  same  doctrine  of  elision  has  been  in  our 
verse  and  our  criticism.  To  this  day,  our  poets  show  a  marked  fond- 
ness for  effects  dependent  on  '  slurring '  of  vowels.  Tennyson's  line  in 
Lucretius : 

Ruining  along  the  illimitable  inane... 

could  be  reduced  to  ten  syllables  by  the  methods  now  under  discussion. 
So  could,  wholly  or  almost  wholly,  that  more  difficult  heroic  line  in 
Mr  Swinburne's  Elegy  on  Burton : 

Illimitable,  insuperable,  infinite. 

And  I  lately  saw  a  poet  rebuked  for  '  eliding '  a  syllable  ending  in  -m, 
though  he — poor  soul ! — had  probably  no  thought  of  '  elision,'  but 
intended  only  rapid  pronunciation. 

Even  in  Dryden  and  Pope,  and  even  in  the  comic  verse  of  Hudibras, 
is  it  certain  that  elision  was  a  reality  ?  Did  people  really  say  tatone  for 
to  atone,  thinsane  for  the  insane,  etc.  ?  Mr  Bridges,  in  three  articles 
contributed  to  the  Athenaeum  during  January,  1904 — articles  to  be 
read  by  all  interested  in  this  subject — aptly  asks  whether  we  must  say : 

Tell  what  her  Dameter  tan  inch  is... 


Discussions  99 

for  '  Diameter  to  an  inch.'  And  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Pope  said 
vilet  for  violet,  made  actual  dissyllables  of  words  like  avarice,  amorous, 
following,  virtuous,  he  impairs,  or  that  anybody  could  make  a  true 
monosyllable  of  flowrd.  One  knows  that  Dryden  in  his  prefaces 
maintained  elision,  but  did  he  mean  more  than  that  the  syllables  were 
to  count  as  one  ?  Cowper,  who  is  twice  quoted  by  Prof.  Thomas  (Vol.  in, 
pp.  20  and  24,  notes),  speaks  of  '  cutting  short '  a  the ;  does  this  imply 
total  omission  of  the  vowel  ?  I  am  much  inclined  to  think  that  total 
elision  is  a  fiction  of  grammarians,  and  of  poets  playing  the  grammarian 
to  their  own  detriment ;  and  that  the  real  use  of  such  spellings  as 
t'  atone  is  merely  to  indicate  that  the  word  to  should  not  receive  distinct 
pronunciation,  but  should  be  slurred  or  glided  into  the  following  vowel. 
In  this  connection  it  may  be  remembered  that  Pope  gave  special  praise 
to  his  own  line  : 

The  freezing  Tanais  through  a  waste  of  snows... 

where  surely  a  trisyllabic  effect  must  be  heard  in  the  proper  name. 

Returning  to  Milton,  I  doubt  if  we  can  ever  feel  sure  of  his  accentua- 
tion in  cases  otherwise  doubtful,  therefore  the  question  about  his  '  final 
trochee ' — in  words  like  surface,  exile,  future,  prostrate,  etc. — remains 
insoluble.  Modern  poets,  however,  use  this  cadence.  Much  discussion 
about  accent  in  §  7  of  these  papers,  and  tiltings  with  Prof.  Masson  and 
Mr  Bridges  (cf.  also  Vol.  II,  pp.  313-4),  can  lead  to  no  result.  I  note 
that  the  critic  is  driven  to  admit  '  some  slip  on  the  part  of  the  poet ' 
{Vol.  Ill,  p.  37,  1.  14),  which  is  always  a  dangerous  argument.  Milton's 
principles  should  not  be  conceived  as  cast-iron  rules.  He  departs  from 
them  occasionally,  perhaps  on  purpose  -to  show  his  freedom.  If  he 
usually  slurs  such  words  as  to  atone,  he  sometimes  gives  the  vowel  its 
full  value.  If  he  most  often  so  treats  the  termination  -ble  before  a 
vowel,  as  in  (P.L.,u,  626): 

Abominable,  inutterable,  and  worse..., 
he  can  also  write  (ibid.,  v,  565) : 

To  human  sense  th'  invisible  exploits. 

Similarly,  many  compound  words  are  accented  either  on  first  or  second 
syllable  at  pleasure,  sometimes  being  repeated  twice  in  the  same  line 
with  different  accentuation,  as  Prof.  Thomas  has  not  failed  to  observe. 
That  as  a  rule  Milton  'avoids  fusing  stressed  syllables'  (Vol.  in,  p.  21, 
1.  6)  is  a  just  remark,  but  this  rule  too  has  its  exceptions.  And  when 
it  comes  to  sounding  '  the  Most  High '  as  '  thee  Most  High '  (ibid.,  p.  29, 
1.  2),  and  similarly  treating  '  the  high  Capital '  (p.  37,  1.  4),  I  think  we 
must  feel  that  the  limits  of  sane  prosody  have  been  overstepped. 

My  own  feeling  is  that  they  are  overstepped  also  when  we  are  asked 
(p.  32,  1.  4)  to  accept  such  a  contraction  as  'th'  voice'  in  (P.L.,  x,  198): 

Because  thou  hast  heark'nd  to  the  voice  of  thy  Wife. 

'The  difficulty,  however,  of  feeling  sure  in  such  matters  is  shown  in  a 

7—2 


100  Discussions 

line  almost  immediately  following  (ibid.,  X,  204),  which  I  give  like  the 
last  in  Milton's  own  spelling : 

Unbid,  and  thou  shalt  eat  th'  Herb  of  th'  Field. 

Prof.  Thomas  has  not  noticed  the  apparent  contradiction  in  this  second 
line.  He  suggests  (p.  31,  lowest  line)  that  we  '  elide '  the  first  the,  but 
says  nothing  about  the  second,  to  whose  vowel  he  evidently  allows  full 
value.  Yet  Milton's  spelling,  if  rightly  reproduced,  '  elides '  both. 
I  cannot  myself  read  the  line  as  printed  by  Canon  Beeching,  and  can 
only  suppose  there  is  a  mistake,  probably  in  the  original  type. 

The  subject  being  so  beset  with  difficulties,  it  seems  to  me  extremely 
hazardous  to  assume  that  Milton  favoured  colloquial  contractions,  surely 
unsuited  to  his  dignified  verse.  Is  it  not  much  more  probable  that  his 
apostrophe  represented  light  and  rapid  sound — a  sort  of  blurred  vowel  ? 
'  Rapidly  sounded,  but  not  counted  in  the  line,'  is  one  phrase  used  in 
these  papers  (p.  30,  1.  10) ;  does  not  this  practically  mean,  '  not  counted 
in  the  beats '  ?  History  and  theory  both  support  this  ;  Elizabethan  free- 
dom, reproduced  during  the  last  century,  shows  it  possible  in  fact  as 
undoubtedly  in  prosody.  With  modern  poetry  Prof.  Thomas  is  perhaps 
less  intimately  acquainted  than  with  older,  for  I  find  him  asserting 
(p.  25, 1.  5)  that  at  present  English  poets  use  only  feet  of  two  or  of  three 
syllables,  whereas  they  certainly  also  use  one  of  four,  commonly  con- 
taining a  primary  and  a  secondary  accent.  Here,  as  always,  the  burden  of 
proof  rests  on  those  who  depart  from  customary  views,  and  I  suspect  it 
is  here  too  heavy  for  the  bearer.  I  am  not  convinced  that  Milton  pro- 
nounced spiritual  as  two  syllables,  though  I  am  quite  sure  that  he  gave 
it  the  value  of  only  two  syllables  in  his  line  (P.L.,  iv,  677) : 

Millions  of  spiritual  Creatures  walk  the  Earth. 

Nor  am  I  convinced  that  he  so  pronounced  innocent,  populous,  capital, 
politic,  piety,  deity,  and  many  such  words,  though  beyond  doubt  they 
occupy  the  time  usually  assigned  to  two  syllables  in  his  verse.  One 
line,  thus  printed  in  Canon  Beeching's  edition  (P.R.,  in,  256): 

Th'  one  winding,  the  [sic]  other  strait  and  left  between... 

I  can  scan  only  by  supposing  that  one  was  not  yet  pronounced  wun,  but 
retained  its  initial  vowel ;  th'  one  clearly  occupies  the  normal  time  of  a 
single  syllable1. 

There  are  many  other  points  in  these  papers  well  worth  considering, 
and  they  furnish  a  rich  treasury  of  assorted  examples.  I  was  particularly 
struck  by  a  remark  (Vol.  in,  pp.  16-7)  to  the  effect  that  'iambic* 
accentuation  formed  no  part  of  the  original  decasyllabic ;  a  remark 
which  seems  to  me  as  true  as  it  will  be  novel  to  many  people.  I  hope 
Prof.  Thomas  will  continue  his  researches  into  the  verse  of  Milton  and 
other  poets ;  but,  before  doing  so,  I  wish  he  would  consider  afresh  what 
precisely  takes  place  when  two  syllables  are,  as  we  phrase  it,  slurred 
together. 

1  Was  the  poetical  th'  other  as  real  a  dissyllable  as  the  colloquial  tother? 


Discussions  101 

[The  preceding  pages  were  written  before  I  had  seen  Prof.  Thomas's 
third  paper,  or  knew  that  it  was  to  follow.  They  were  also  written  in 
ignorance  of  his  not  being  a  compatriot,  a  fact  which  I  should  never 
have  inferred  from  these  essays.  Having  since  read  the  third  paper, 
I  find  nothing  in  it  which  alters  my  opinion  on  the  matter  discussed, 
and  prefer  to  let  these  pages  stand  as  originally  written.  I  note,  how- 
ever, that '  a  fixed  number  of  syllables '  now  appears  without  qualification 
(p.  237,  tenth  line  from  foot ;  p.  245, 1.  4),  and  that  'haste'  or  'negligence' 
on  the  poet's  part  is  again  invoked  as  an  explanation  of  abnormalities 
(pp.  237,  1.  4;  238,  1.  15;  255,  1.  10).  I  think  English  readers  will 
hardly  recognise  an  ee  sound  in  the  words  '  horrid  rift  abortive '  (p.  248, 
1.  6) ;  a  better  instance  would  have  been  : 

0  Eve,  in  evil  hour  thou  didst  give  ear  (p.  254,  1.  6). 

The  bold  assertion,  in  this  paper's  final  sentence,  that  our  heroic  measure 
'  has  never  allowed  the  intrusion  of  trisyllabic  feet,'  must  of  course  stand 
or  fall  with  our  definition  of  such  feet ;  this  is  the  one  point  dealt  with 
in  my  queries.  Very  much  in  this  third  paper  merits  notice,  and 
would  receive  it  in  any  full  review;  admiration  of  its  writer's  care, 
patience,  and  thoroughness  remains  undiminished.  The  question  of 
'  slurring,'  however,  receives  no  new  treatment.  With  reference  to  the 
first  footnote  on  p.  234,  1  may  observe  that  the  line  quoted  has  no  stops 
in  Canon  Beeching's  edition,  and  may  therefore  be  read: 

Me,  me,  only  just  object  of  his  ire, 

avoiding  what  is  certainly  an  unusual  cadence.  The  second  footnote  on 
the  same  page  surely  ignores  such  familiar  lines  as  (P.  L.  iv,  830) : 

Not  to  know  me  argues  yourselves  unknown, 
with  others  less  familiar,  e.g.  (ibid.,  VI,  19) : 

War  he  perceived,  war  in  procinct. 

In  the  last  example  cited  on  p.  237,  is  not  the  word  '  then '  emphatic  ? 
The  remarks  on  Milton's  varied  caesuras  are  excellent,  if  necessarily  not 
novel ;  those  on  his  '  harmony '  (§  ix)  too,  except  as  regards  contractions. 
Hearty  thanks  are  certainly  due  to  Prof.  Thomas  for  his  papers  from  all 
lovers  of  our  great  Puritan  poet.] 

T.  S.  OMOND. 
TUNBRIDGE  WELLS. 


REVIEWS. 


The    Oxford  Book   of  French    Verse.      Chosen  "by   ST   JOHN   LUCAS. 
Oxford :   Clarendon  Press.     8vo,  xxxv.  +  492  pp. 

Drama  apart,  the  greatest  names  of  French  literature  are  to  be 
found  among  its  prose-writers.  France  has  no  poets  who  have  combined 
originality  of  thought  with  brilliance  of  expression  quite  in  the  same 
degree  as  Rabelais,  or  Montaigne,  or  Pascal.  Even  if  we  throw  the 
drama  into  the  scale,  the  balance  remains  unaltered.  For  the  dramatic 
qualities  of  Corneille,  Moliere,  and  even  of  Racine,  are  superior  to  their 
purely  poetic  ones.  To  what  is  this  due  ?  to  the  national  temperament, 
or  to  the  character  of  the  language?  Probably  to  a  combination  of 
both.  It  was  the  love  of  reason  and  lucidity  far  more  than  Malherbe's 
rigid  rules  of  versification  that  early  in  the  seventeenth  century  dried 
up  the  sources  of  French  lyric  poetry,  and  suffered  them  only  to  trickle 
in  a  tiny  stream  for  two  hundred  years.  But  it  is  also  an  undoubted 
fact  that  the  French  Muse  wears  a  '  tight  buskin.'  For  songs  and 
lighter  lyrics,  indeed,  a  certain  '  rebelliousness '  in  the  form  is  on  the 
whole  an  advantage,  for  it  helps  to  save  them  from  the  pitfalls  of 
trivial  thought  and  commonplace  expression.  But  in  longer  poems, 
especially  in  those  of  a  philosophical  character,  the  task  of  presenting 
the  thought  with  that  lucidity  which  a  Frenchman  demands — a  French 
Browning  is  inconceivable — and  at  the  same  time  in  a  perfectly  poetical 
form,  is  one  to  tax  the  skill  of  the  most  consummate  artist — of  a  Hugo 
or  a  Milton.  How  easy  it  is  to  fail  can  be  judged  from  the  later  work  of 
Sully  Prudhomme.  Moreover  the  border  line  between  poetry  and  prose 
is  narrower  in  France  than  in  England,  and  it  requires  not  only  natural 
genius  but  perfect  workmanship  and  vigilant  self-criticism  to  sustain 
a  French  poet  who  is  also  a  thinker  in  his  arduous  flight.  When 
Sainte-Beuve  said  in  1829,  that  the  chief  merit  of  all  French  poets 
except  Moliere  and  perhaps  Corneille  was  their  style,  he  implied  that 
in  his  opinion  the  greatest  French  thinkers  had  turned  aside  from 
poetry. 

His  remark  also  implies  the  important  aesthetic  truth,  that  the  merit 
of  poetry  depends  in  the  first  instance  upon  style.  Style  alone  does  not 
make  great  poetry,  but  without  style  there  is  no  poetry  at  all.  Now  it 
is  a  commonplace  that  it  is  far  more  difficult  to  appreciate  the  poetry 


Reviews  103 

of  a  foreign  country  than  its  prose.  But  the  secrets  of  French  poetry 
seem  peculiarly  difficult  for  an  Englishman  to  penetrate.  Its  artistic 
workmanship,  its  delicate  and  subtle  music,  its  grace  and  distinction, 
demand  a  certain  preparation  from  the  English  student  before  he  can 
worship  at  its  shrine.  We  know  how  insensible  was  the  ear  of  Matthew 
Arnold  to  its  harmonies,  and  Mr  J.  C.  Bailey  in  his  excellent  volume, 
The  Claims  of  French  Poetry,  is  probably  right  in  saying  that  English- 
men have  a  prejudice  against  French  poetry. 

For  this  reason  Mr  St  John  Lucas's  Book  of  French  Verse  is 
peculiarly  welcome.  He  has  brought  to  his  task  not  only  knowledge, 
care,  and  sympathy,  but  the  discriminating  taste  of  one  who  is  himself 
a  poet,  and  whose  own  poetry  is  distinguished  by  a  fine  sense  of  harmony. 
Where  one  dissents — as  one  must  occasionally — from  his  judgments,  one 
does  so  with  diffidence  and  humility.  The  historical  survey  which  serves 
as  an  introduction  to  the  selection  may  also  be  heartily  praised,  but 
with  rather  more  reservation.  Its  defects  are  a  tendency  to  over- 
statement, and,  partly  as  a  result  of  this,  a  certain  inequality  of 
treatment.  Thus  Mr  Lucas,  in  his  wrath  against  the  'deplorable 
cataract  of  ballades  and  rondeaux'  which  marked  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries,  almost  entirely  forgets  the  earlier  and  fresher  period 
of  French  lyric,  and  he  represents  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries 
by  only  two  examples.  Where  are  Thibaut  de  Champagne,  Audefroy 
the  Bastard,  Conon  de  Bethune,  the  Chatelain  of  Coucy,  Gace  Brule, 
and  Blondel  de  Nesle  ?  Where  are  the  motets  and  pastourelles  and  the 
other  anonymous  lyrics  of  this  period  ?  On  the  other  hand,  Mr  Lucas 
pays  a  just  tribute  to  Charles  d'Orleans,  arid  he  estimates  the  genius  of 
Villon  in  a  half-page  which  is  wholly  admirable.  Admirable,  too,  in 
spite  of  a  few  random  shafts,  is  his  account  of  the  Pleiade.  But  his 
legitimate  enthusiasm  for  Ronsard  and  his  followers  blinds  him  to  the 
merit  of  Marot's  work  as  a  pioneer1.  It  is  misleading  to  speak  of  French 
poetry  as  being  in  a  '  prison  which  had  Marot  for  governor.'  Rather  it 
was  Marot  who  released  the  French  Muse  from  prison,  while  it  was 
Ronsard  who  gave  her  wings.  The  poetry  of  the  Marotic  school  should 
have  been  represented  by  a  few  more  examples,  at  least  by  the  remark- 
able sonnet  prefixed  to  Des  Periers's  Nouvelles  Recreations  et  Joyeux 
Devis,  which  I  commend  to  Mr  Lucas's  notice.  The  selection  from  the 
poetry  of  the  Pleiade  is  full  and  good.  Yet  I  notice  a  few  omissions- 
Jean  de  La  Taille,  Gamier,  Pibrac,  Bertrant.  Room  might  have  been 
found  for  the  shortest  and  most  beautiful  of  Belleau's  Pierreries,  La, 
pierre  aqueuse.  Magny  is  indifferently  well  represented,  and  I  would 
gladly  exchange  Louise  Labe's  fiUgie  for  one  or  two  more  of  her  sonnets, 
in  which  by  the  way  I  do  not  detect  any  'obscure  symbolism.'  Mr  Lucas 
is  unjust  to  Du  Ba'rtas.  The  greater  part  of  his  poetry  is  'inflated 
fustian,'  if  you  like,  and  his  epic  as  a  whole  is  a  complete  failure.  But 
it  contains  a  few  fine  passages  which  are  marked  by  imagination  of  the 
highest  order.  I  do  not  however  suggest  that  Mr  Lucas  should  have 

1  There  is  an  admirable  appreciation  of  Marot  in  Mr  Bailey's  volume. 


104  Reviews 

given  one  of  these,  for  he  has  apparently  made  an  excellent  rule  to 
include  none  but  complete  poems.  When  I  think  of  the  liberties  which 
some  editors  of  anthologies,  especially  French  editors,  take  with  lyrical 
poems,  I  cannot  praise  this  resolution  too  highly.  But  it  has  deprived 
Mr  Lucas  of  the  power  of  including  favourable  specimens  not  only  of 
Du  Bartas  and  his  fellow  Huguenot  D'Aubigne,  but  also  of  giving  an 
example,  such  as  the  account  of  Hippolyte's  death,  of  Racine's  most 
characteristic  verse. 

The  least  satisfactory  part  of  Mr  Lucas's  book  is  his  treatment  of 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries.  Frenchmen  now-a-days  are 
under  no  illusion  as  to  the  value  of  the  lyric  poetry  of  their  classical 
period.  Why  then  does  Mr  Lucas,  who  inveighs  against  this  period 
with  almost  unnecessary  energy,  think  it  necessary  to  represent  it  by 
such  third-rate  poets  as  Colletet,  Benserade,  Chapelle,  Mme.  Deshoulieres, 
Le  Brun,  Ducis,  Fontanes  ?  For  the  tfpicerie  which  he  gives  as  a  specimen 
of  Maucroix  he  might  have  substituted  the  stanzas  cited  by  Sainte-Beuve 
in  his  charming  article  on  this  friend  of  La  Fontaine.  Closely  inspired 
as  they  are  by  Virgil's  0  fortunatos  nimium  !  they  would  have  formed 
an  admirable  trio  with  Desportes's  Chanson  (No.  123)  and  Racan's  Stances 
(No.  136)1.  There  are  too  many  rondeaux  by  Voiture  and  too  many 
epigrams  by  Voltaire.  Why  give  the  Stances  de  Don  Rodrique  of  which 
Corneille  himself  said  in  his  later  years  that  their  affectation  was  in- 
excusable ?  Is  Racine  satisfactorily  represented  by  three  hymns  and 
three  epigrams  ?  It  is  an  insult  to  Moliere  to  give  as  a  specimen  of 
his  genius  a  sonnet  which  is  only  differentiated  from  prose  by  the 
rhymes  and  the  order  of  the  words.  On  the  other  hand  Mr  Lucas's 
appreciations  of  La  Fontaine  and  Andre  Chenier  and  his  selection  from 
their  poetry — I  miss  Les  deux  pigeons  and  Le  paysan  du  Danube  from 
the  former — are  worthy  of  all  commendation. 

No  English  lover  of  poetry,  at  any  rate,  will  quarrel  with  Mr  Lucas's 
estimate  of  Malherbe,  and  no  competent  French  critic,  except  M.  Faguet, 
thinks  him  a  great  poet,  but  Frenchmen  rightly  recognise  the  virile,  if 
monotonous,  harmony  of  his  verse,  and  the  careful  finish  of  his  work- 
manship. In  versification  he  is  the  master  of  Corneille,  but  his  chief 
service  to  French  literature  lies  in  the  fact  that  he  introduced  that 
spirit  of  self-criticism  which  is  as  necessary  in  verse  as  it  is  in  prose. 
Mr  Lucas  is  right  in  pointing  out  that  Malherbe  was  'merely  the 
spokesman  of  his  age,'  and  that  he  did  not  kill  lyric  poetry.  But  no 
more  can  the  ladies  who  frequented  the  Hotel  de  Rambouillet  in  its 
palmy  days — is  it  fair  to  call  them  Precieuses,  a  name  which  was  not 
invented  till  about  1650  ? — be  said  to  have  killed  it.  It  was  dead 
already.  Is  it  true  to  say  of  the  creator  of  French  classical  drama  that 
'  no  man  of  genius  was  less  of  an  inventor '  ?  Not  only  the  Cid,  but 
Melite,  Le  Menteur,  Rodogune,  and  Nicomede  were  all  experiments  and 
not  unsuccessful  ones. 

1  It  has,  I  think,  never  been  noticed  how  freely  Racan  borrows  from  Desportes  in  this 
his  best-known  poem. 


Reviews  105 

When  he  comes  to  the  Romantic  movement  Mr  Lucas  is  again  at 
his  best.  Nothing  could  be  happier  than  his  account  of  Chateaubriand 
as  the  '  pioneer '  of  the  movement — nous  sommes  tons  partis  de  lui,  said 
one  of  the  Romantics — and  he  rightly  couples  with  him  Mme.  de  Stael. 
With  his  selection  from  the  greatest  poets  of  the  movement  there  is 
room  at  most  for  an  occasional  difference  of  opinion.  For  instance, 
Lamartine's  most  characteristic  music  is  played  on  what  Sainte-Beuve 
calls  '  his  enchanted  flute '  rather  than  with  a  full  orchestra,  and  for 
that  reason  I  should  have  omitted  his  long  and  late  poem,  La  vigne  et 
la  maison,  in  spite  of  its  fine  passages,  to  make  room  for  three  more  of 
the  first  Meditations — Le  Vallon,  L'Automne  and  L'Isolement,  of  which 
the  last  is  to  my  mind  superior  even  to  Le  Lac.  '  Richness  of  diction/ 
I  would  suggest,  is  not  a  characteristic  of  these  early  poems.  They 
seem  as  if  written  by  some  ethereal  spirit,  or,  as  more  than  one  French 
critic  has  said,  by  the  Muse  of  poetry  herself.  Yet  Matthew  Arnold 
remarked  to  Sainte-Beuve  that  he  could  not  consider  Lamartine  a  poet 
of  very  high  importance.  No  poet  of  the  Romantic  movement  has 
gained  more  in  estimation  during  recent  years  than  Alfred  de  Vigny, 
and  Mr  Lucas  represents  him  by  four  fine  poems.  As  a  thinker  Vigny  is 
undoubtedly  superior  to  both  Hugo  and  Musset.but  let  anyone  compare 
La  Maison  du  Berger  or  La  bouteille  a  la  mer  with  the  Lettre  a 
Lamartine  and  the  Tristesse  d' Olympic,  and  he  will  recognise  that  as  an 
artist  he  is  their  inferior.  Especially  his  handling  of  the  long  poetical 
phrase  lacks  their  certainty  of  execution. 

The  poetry  of  Victor  Hugo  offers  so  wide  a  field  that  it  is 
inevitable  that  no  two  persons  should  agree  in  their  choice.  Yet 
the  only  poems  in  Mr  Lucas's  selection  that  seem  to  me  unworthy  of 
their  place  are  Souvenir  de  la  Nuit  du  4,  from  Les  Ghdtiments  (No.  242) 
and  L'Enfance,  from  Les  Contemplations,  in  both  of  which  the  pathos  is 
forced.  There  are,  however,  several  poems  in  Les  Contemplations  which 
I  should  have  preferred  to  Elle  avait  pris  ce  pli  (No.  346)  and  J'ai 
cueilli  cette  fleur,  notably  that  fine  poem  Ibo.  I  also  regret  the  absence 
of  that  even  finer  poem  Ce  qu'on  entend  sur  la  montagne  (from  Les 
Feuilles  d'Automne},  which  Sainte-Beuve  regarded  as  Hugo's  master- 
piece. The  selection  from  Alfred  de  Musset  is  full  and  admirable. 
There  is  nothing  one  would  wish  away.  Rather,  the  most  sincere  record 
of  passion  that  was  ever  made  immortal  by  verse  might  have  been 
completed  by  the  addition  of  Souvenir — especially  interesting  for  com- 
parison with  Le  Lac  and  La  Tristesse  d'Olympio — and  Tristesse. 

The  lesser  poets  of  Romanticism  are  worthily  represented  by  Brizeux, 
Barbier  and  Laprade,  all  with  fine  poems.  Felix  Arvers  appears  with 
the  single  sonnet  by  which  he  is  remembered.  But  the  examples  of 
Simile  Deschamps  and  Casimir  Dela vigne  are  hardly  good  enough  for 
their  company.  Hegesippe  Moreau  would  have  been  better  represented 
by  La  Fermiere.  The  three  poems  by  Sainte-Beuve  serve  to  confirm 
one's  impression  that  he  lacked  the  magic  alchemy  which  transmutes 
the  rough  ore  of  emotional  thought  into  the  gold  of  true  poetry. 
Gerard  de  Nerval,  that  forerunner  of  the  Symbolists,  is  well  represented 


106  Reviews 

by  two  sonnets  and  two  short  lyrics,  of  which  the  latter  might  have 
been  signed  by  Paul  Verlaine.  The  one  serious  omission  here  is 
Mme.  Ackermann. 

The  selection  from  Gautier  is  good,  and  the  passage  through  him 
from  Romanticism  to  the  Parnassian  School  is  well  indicated  in  the 
Introduction.  The  leader  of  the  Parnassians,  Leconte  de  Lisle1,  whose 
poetry  has  the  relief,  but  also  the  hardness,  of  metal-work,  is  also  well 
represented.  A  welcome  addition  would  have  been  those  two  striking 
sonnets,  Les  montreurs  and  Aux  modernes,  which  show  that  he  was  by 
no  means  the  impassive  artist  he  pretended  to  be.  His  whole  poetry 
is  an  eloquent  protest  against  the  regime  of  Napoleon  III,  all  the  more 
eloquent  because  of  its  apparent  reserve.  Soulary,  like  Gautier,  was 
a  Parnassian  before  letters,  an  inferior  Coppee  without  his  facility.  Of 
the  two  sonnets  given  by  Mr  Lucas,  one,  Les  deux  corteges,  is  generally 
considered  by  his  admirers  to  be  his  masterpiece.  It  is  also  famous  for 
having  been  dissected  by  M.  Lemaitre  with  cruel  penetration. 

Finally  we  come  to  that  unequal  but  true  poet,  Charles  Baudelaire, 
to  whose  influence  was  largely  due  the  rise  of  the  Symbolist  school,  and 
to  Paul  Verlaine,  whom  that  school  hailed  as  their  leader.  It  is  an 
omission  in  Mr  Lucas's  Introduction  that  it  closes  without  any  reference 
to  this  reaction  against  the  Parnassians,  to  this  substitution  for  the 
plastic  representation  of  the  visible  and  material  world  of  a  poetry  which 
also  takes  account  of  spirit,  and  which  assimilates  its  methods  to  those 
of  its  natural  ally,  music,  rather  than  to  those  of  painting  and  sculpture. 
Of  Verlaine's  poetry  Mr  Lucas  gives  some  characteristic  specimens, 
including  the  Chanson  d'Automne,  which  though  published  as  far  back 
as  1866,  already  has  more  than  a  touch  of  symbolism,  and  Sagesse,  which 
appeared  in  1880.  No  worthier  envoi  than  this  last  could  have  been 
found  for  Mr  Lucas's  charming  volume.  This  tiny  poem,  of  four  stanzas, 
with  four  short  lines  to  each  stanza,  and  composed  of  barely  more  than 
fifty  different  words,  has  all  the  sincerity — '  sincerity  to  the  impression 
of  the  moment '  was  Verlaine's  poetic  ideal — the  intimacy,  the  delicate 
and  refined  harmony  which  are  characteristics  of  French  lyrical  poetry. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  copyright  reasons  have  prevented  Mr  Lucas 
from  giving  specimens  of  Heredia.  The  same  reason  doubtless  accounts 
for  the  absence  of  Albert  Samain's  delicate  Muse. 

ARTHUR  TILLEY. 
CAMBRIDGE. 


The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature.  Edited  by  A.  W.  WARD 
and  A.  R.  WALLER.  Vol.  n.  The  End  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Cam- 
bridge :  University  Press.  1908.  Royal  8vo.  xii  +  539  pp. 

In  his  '  final  words '  to  the  present  volume  Mr  Waller  combats,  not 
without  cause,  the  common  superstition  that  the  fifteenth  century  is,  to 

1  Leconte  de  Lisle  was  born  in  1820  not  in  1818.    Mr  Lucas's  dates  for  most  of  the 
minor  poets  of  the  Pleiade  school  require  revision. 


Reviews  107 

the  reader  of  English  literature,  '  an  uninviting  barren  waste,  in  which 
it  were  idle  and  unprofitable  to  spend  one's  time  when  it  can  be  fleeted 
carelessly  in  "  the  demesnes  that  here  adjacent  lie." '  The  greater  part 
of  this  second  instalment  of  the  Cambridge  History  is  designed  to 
correct  such  hasty  estimates  of  the  period's  significance  in  our  literary 
annals.  One  may  not  perhaps  be  quite  prepared  to  endorse  Mr  Waller's 
own  enthusiastic  belief  that  the  fifteenth  '  can  well  hold  its  own  in  the 
history  of  our  literature  as  against  the  centuries  that  precede  or  follow 
it.'  In  support  of  so  sanguine  a  proposition  he  has,  for  example,  to 
hazard  so  doubtful  a  statement  as  that  The  Nut  Brown  Maid  is  'in 
itself  sufficient,  in  form  and  music  and  theme,  to  "  make  the  fortune  "  of 
any  century.'  Still,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  contributors  to  this 
volume  have  succeeded  in  giving  us  a  presentment  of  the  literature  of 
the  fifteenth  century  which  more  than  '  holds  its  own,'  both  in  interest 
and  in  critical  competence,  against  all  its  competitors  in  the  field. 
Moreover,  the  volume  contains  much, — and  that  of  the  first  importance, 
— which  does  not  strictly  come  within  the  limits  of  the  fifteenth 
century;  for  Chaucer,  Gower,  Piers  the  Plowman  and  the  early  Scottish 
poetry  all  find  their  place  here.  The  net  result  is  a  volume  which, 
while  sufficiently  ample  in  range  and  weighty  in  matter,  has  the 
advantage  over  its  predecessor  in  the  series  of  being  more  homogeneous 
by  reason  of  the  fewer  obligations  laid  upon  its  contributors  to  deal 
with  obscure  '  origins '  and  other  matters  more  or  less  alien  to  the  story 
of  English  literature  proper. 

The  task  of  the  editors  of  a  composite  work  planned  on  such  a  scale 
as  that  of  the  Cambridge  History  is  so  difficult  as  to  make  it  appear 
somewhat  ungracious  to  begin  a  detailed  criticism  of  this  volume  with 
a  word  of  complaint  as  to  its  arrangement.  Certain  eccentricities,  not 
to  say  defects,  of  proportion  will,  however,  at  once  attract  the  notice  of 
the  reader.  It  is  not  easy,  for  example,  to  reconcile  one's  self  straight- 
way to  seeing  a  separate  chapter  devoted  to  Stephen  Hawes.  Even 
Chaucer  gets  no  more.  Although  Mr  Murison,  who  writes  (com- 
petently and  agreeably  enough)  about  him,  says  that  'Hawes  occupies 
a  position  of  peculiar  isolation/  he  discovers  little  in  him  which  would 
seem  to  entitle  him  to  the  splendid  isolation  of  a  chapter  in  a  volume 
of  this  compass.  He  did  not,  we  are  told, '  produce  passages  memorable 
for  choice  diction  and  for  harmony  of  sweet  sounds,  passages  familiar  as 
household  words,'  the  sum  of  his  achievement  being  to  '  continue  the 
defects  of  the  fifteenth  century  poets, — confused  metre,  slipshod  con- 
struction, bizarre  diction.'  On  such  a  showing,  an  equally  strong  claim 
to  a  separate  chapter  could  be  made  out  for  Lydgate,  Hawes's  self- 
acknowledged  master,  of  whom  Professor  Saintsbury  says  in  this  very 
volume  that  he  was  '  adored '  by  the  fifteenth  century  '  because  he  com- 
bined all  its  worst  faults.'  It  may  be  that  Hawes,  as  more  than  one 
modern  writer  has  pleaded,  has  been  unduly  depreciated  by  by-gone 
critics,  and  it  is  certain,  as  Mr  Murison  takes  pains  to  point  out,  that 
his  influence  upon  Spenser  was  very  considerable.  But  by  no  process 
of  rehabilitation  can  he  be  advanced  to  a  position  among  individual 


108  Reviews 

writers  reserved  in  this  volume  for  only  Chaucer  and  Gower  besides. 
Again,  most  of  us  hold  Malory  to  be  one  of  the  greater  literary  lights 
of  the  fifteenth  century.  But  Malory  is  altogether  too  perfunctorily 
dismissed  in  the  second  of  two  chapters  on  '  English  Prose  in  the 
Fifteenth  Century.'  Indeed,  a  better  case  could  be  made  out  for 
giving  a  special  chapter  to  Malory  than  to  Hawes ;  for,  as  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  of  our  living  critics  has  said,  'the  great  prose 
achievement  of  the  fifteenth  century'  is  the  Morte  D' Arthur,  and 
Malory's  work  is  'the  prose  analogue  of  Chaucer's  poetry — summing 
up  as  it  does  some  of  the  great  attainments  of  the  Middle  Ages.'  Pro- 
portion, also,  has  to  some  extent  been  sacrificed  in  the  disparity  between 
the  scope  and  matter  of  the  final  chapter  (11  pages),  and  the  extreme 
length,  and  occasional  irrelevance,  of  its  bibliography.  The  editors  tell 
us  that  '  advantage  has  been  taken  of  the  opportunity  afforded  by  a 
concluding  chapter  to  add  a  few  notes  on  books  and  writers  not 
specifically  dealt  with  elsewhere.'  The  result  is  a  somewhat  confusing 
aggregation  of  authors,  both  prose  writers  and  poets,  many  of  whom 
serve  only  to  illustrate  matters  dealt  with  in  various  parts  of  the  first 
volume. 

These,  however,  are  but  trivial  shortcomings  in  a  work  that  is,  as  a 
whole,  a  remarkable  editorial  achievement.  Not,  indeed,  that  the 
editors'  judgment  may  not  be,  and  actually  has  been,  questioned  in 
matters  other  than  those  already  noticed.  The  wisdom,  for  example,  of 
including — at  this  stage  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject, — so  palpably 
controversial  a  chapter  as  that  of  Professor  Manly  on  Piers  the  Plowman 
is,  doubtless,  open  to  some  question.  There  can,  however,  be  no 
doubt  that  Professor  Manly 's  contribution  is  the  most  'challenging' 
in  the  whole  book.  William  Langland  disappears  altogether  under 
the  ruthless  analysis  of  Mr  Manly,  and  'Long  Will,  the  dreamer,'  is 
dismissed  as  being  '  obviously  as  much  a  creation  of  the  muse  as 
Piers  the  Plowman.'  In  his  stead  are  presented  to  us  the  shadowy 
figures  of  a  group  of  writers  who,  for  the  present,  we  must  be  content 
to  know  only  by  the  letters  already  familiar  to  us  as  designating 
the  three  principal  versions  of  the  poem's  text — 'A,  the  continuator 
of  A,  B  and  C.'  Mr  Manly  arrives  at  his  hypothesis  of  composite 
authorship  by  various  tests,  among  them  being  those  of  metre,  of 
scansion,  of  dialectical  differences,  and  the  somewhat  more  precarious 
one  of  '  visual  imagination.'  No  attempt  can  be  made  here  to  give 
even  a  summary  of  the  results  of  these  tests,  or  to  pass  judgment 
upon  their  validity.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  no  student  of  Piers  the 
Plowman  can  afford  to  ignore  them,  and  that  they  open  out  an  exciting 
and  all  but  new  arena  of  controversy  for  the  '  higher  critics '  in  Middle 
English.  Mr  Manly 's  chapter  opens  the  book,  and  is  appropriately 
followed  by  a  clear  and  well- written  survey  of  '  Religious  Movements  in 
the  Fourteenth  Century'  by  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Whitney.  What  the 
literary  student,  perhaps,  may  wish  to  have  had  in  Mr  Whitney's 
chapter  is  a  fuller  treatment  of  Rolle's  Pricke  of  Conscience.  In  her 
chapter  (III)  on  '  The  Beginnings  of  English  Prose '  Miss  Alice  Green- 


Reviews  109 

wood  gives  us,  among  other  things,  a  full  and  spirited  account  of 
Mandevilles  Travels — an  account  which  stands  in  strange  contrast  with 
her  disappointing  treatment  of  Malory  in  a  later  chapter.  A  feature 
of  the  present  volume  is,  as  might  have  been  expected,  the  prominence 
given  to  the  literature  of  Scotland.  Professor  Gregory  Smith  contri- 
butes three  excellent  chapters  on  '  The  Scottish  Language '  (IV),  '  The 
Scottish  Chaucerians'  (X)  and  'The  Middle  Scots  Anthologies  &c.' 
(XI),  respectively.  While  the  two  literary  chapters  afford  some  of  the 
best  and  most  delightful  reading  in  the  book,  special  attention  may  be 
called  to  Chap.  IV,  more  particularly  to  the  passages  in  which  Prof. 
Smith  traverses  the  generally  received  opinions  as  to  the  French 
influence  upon  the  Scottish  language,  due  mainly,  as  he  puts  it,  to  the 
'  neglect  or  depreciation  of  the  position  of  Latin  in  Scottish  culture.' 
'  The  Earlier  Scottish  Literature '  forms  the  subject  of  a  crowded 
chapter  by  Dr  P.  Giles.  Gower  is,  as  he  should  be,  dealt  with  by  our 
highest  English  authority  upon  him ;  and  Mr  Macau  lay  could  hardly 
have  been  expected  to  give  us  more  than  a  summary  of  what  he  had 
already  wrought  and  monumentally  written.  This  he  has  done  with 
admirable  conciseness  and  lucidity. 

The  chapter  on  Chaucer,  by  Professor  Saintsbury,  is  a  thoroughly 
characteristic  contribution.  That  is  to  say,  here,  as  elsewhere  in  his 
recent  writings,  Mr  Saintsbury  carries  his  learning  and  his  vast  reading 
so  easily,  and  writes  with  such  breezy,  not  to  say  jaunty,  confidence  as 
to  disarm  all  but  the  most  ill-natured  critic.  But,  to  slower  minds 
than  his  and  to  those  who  have  perforce  to  pick  their  way  with  cautious 
and  even  faltering  steps  along  such  perilous  paths,  his  treatment  of 
Chaucer  is  apt  to  be  somewhat  disturbing.  It  may  be  said,  at  once, 
that  the  reader  will  not  find  here  a  full  statement  and  discussion  of  all 
the  outstanding  problems  of  Chaucerian  scholarship.  The  chapter  is, 
frankly,  an  '  appreciation '  from  the  literary  and  human  point  of  view. 
Hence  its  defects  and  its  merits.  What,  perhaps,  disturbs  one  most  is 
Mr  Saintsbury 's  methods  of  statement.  Not  to  mention  occasional 
loose  writing,  he  leaves  us  with  too  many  choices  and  probabilities  and 
qualifications.  His  criticism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  delightfully  refresh- 
ing, all  the  more  so  because  he  insists  upon  surveying  Chaucer's  work 
as  a  whole,  and  refuses  to  consider  him  in  compartments.  One  of  the 
very  best  things  in  the  chapter  is  its  treatment  of  Chaucer's  humour. 
'In  most  great  English  humorists,  humour  sets  the  picture  with  a 
sort  of  vignetting  or  arabesquing  fringe  and  atmosphere  of  exaggeration 
and  fantasy.  By  Chaucer  it  is  almost  invariably  used  to  bring  a  higher 
but  a  quite  clear  and  achromatic  light  on  the  picture  itself  or  parts  of 
it.  The  stuff  is  turned  rapidly  the  other  way  to  show  its  real  texture ; 
the  jest  is  perhaps  a  burning,  but  also  a  magnifying  and  illuminating, 
glass,  to  bring  out  a  special  trait  more  definitely.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
a  great  deal  of  the  combination  of  vivacity  and  veracity  in  Chaucer's 
portraits  and  sketches  of  all  kinds  is  due  to  this  all-pervading  humour ; 
indeed,  it  is  not  very  likely  that  any  one  would  deny  this.  What 
seems,  for  some  commentators,  harder  to  keep  in  mind  is  that  it  may 


110  Reviews 

be,  and  probably  is,  equally  present  in  other  places  where  the  effect  is 
less  immediately  rejoicing  to  the  modern  reader;  and  that  medieval 
pedantry,  medieval  catalogue-making,  medieval  digression  and  irrele- 
vance are  at  once  exemplified  and  satirised  by  the  operation  of  this 
extraordinary  faculty.'  In  a  chapter  in  which  '  commentators '  and 
textual  critics  and  other  unliterary  folk  are  rather  cavalierly  dealt 
with,  it  is  good  to  see  full  justice  done  to  the  great  achievements  of 
Tyrwhitt. 

Space  forbids  more  than  a  passing  mention  of  the  remaining  con- 
tributions to  this  very  interesting  volume.  Miss  Greenwood's  chapters 
on  the  development  of  English  prose  give,  on  the  whole,  a  full  and  clear 
survey  of  the  subject,  but,  as  has  been  said  already,  she  should  have  given 
much  greater  prominence  to  Malory.  Mr  Gordon  Duff  and  Mr  T.  A. 
Walker  write  on  the  early  history  of  the  printing-press,  and  on  English 
and  Scottish  education,  respectively,  while  Professor  Padelford  of 
Washington  contributes  an  excellent  chapter  on  '  Transition  English 
Song  Collections.'  Of  greater  interest,  perhaps,  to  the  ordinary  reader 
will  be  the  chapter  on  '  Ballads '  by  another  American — Prof.  Gurnmere, 
a  recognised  authority  on  the  subject.  On  the  vexed  question  of  ballad 
origins  Prof.  Gummere  maintains  that  '  when  one  studies  the  structure 
and  the  elements  of  the  ballad  itself  as  a  poetic  form,  a  form  demon- 
strably  connected  with  choral  dramatic  conditions  in  its  origin  but 
modified  by  a  long  epic  process  in  the  course  of  oral  and  quite  popular 
tradition,  one  is  compelled  to  dismiss  absolutely  the  theory  of  minstrel 
authorship,  and  to  regard  ballads  as  both  made  and  transmitted  by  the 
people.'  Finally,  it  remains  to  be  noted  that  this  second  volume 
conveys  the  pleasant  news  that  it  has  already  '  been  found  necessary  to 
prepare  a  second  impression  of  the  first,'  and  with  it  is  issued  a  leaflet 
of  corrections  made  in  Vol.  I  'in  order  that  purchasers  of  the  first 
impression  may  not  be  placed  at  any  disadvantage.' 

W.  LEWIS  JONES. 

BANGOR. 


Pastoral  Poetry  and  Pastoral  Drama.  A  Literary  Inquiry,  with  special 
reference  to  the  Pre- Restoration  Stage  in  England.  By  WALTER 
W.  GREG.  London:  A.  H.  Bullen,  1906.  8vo.  xii  +  464  pp. 

This  is  a  scholarly,  exhaustive,  and  interesting  thesis  which  requires 
and  repays  careful  study.  A  hasty  reading  is  both  apt  to  convey  a 
mistaken  impression  as  to  the  interest  of  the  work  (which  is  to  be  found 
in  the  discriminating  and  penetrating  criticisms  of  the  principal  poems 
and  plays  passed  in  review)  and  even  to  mislead,  for  some  of  Mr  Greg's 
obiter  dicta  require  the  qualification  and  amplification  which  they 
generally  receive  in  the  course  of  the  treatise.  Moving  through  an 
elaborate  argument,  or  complex  genealogy,  he  sometimes  raises  ex- 
pectation of  a  slightly  different  conclusion  from  that  which  he  actually 
reaches 


Reviews  111 

The  pastoral  drama  in  England  is  Mr  Greg's  theme.  But  to 
detach  any  one  specific  kind  of  pastoral  literature  of  the  Renaissance 
from  the  rest  is  impossible,  because  the  pastoral  ideal  of  the  Renaissance 
refused  to  be  confined  to  any  single  form,  such  as  the  classical  eclogue, 
but  invaded  every  department  of  literature — sonnets  and  lyrics,  romance 
and  epic,  as  well  as  drama — and  that  so  spontaneously  that,  although 
one  may,  and  Mr  Greg  does,  indicate  stages  in  the  evolution  of  the 
pastoral  romance  or  the  pastoral  drama,  it  is  well  to  be  on  one's  guard 
against  any  too  rigid  theory  of  origins.  Quite  naturally,  therefore, 
Mr  Greg  devotes  the  first  two  chapters  of  his  book  to  a  review  of 
pastoral  literature  from  Theocritus  and  Virgil,  through  Petrarch, 
Boccaccio,  Mantuan,  Sanazzaro,  Montemayor  and  Marot,  to  Spenser, 
Sidney  and  their  followers.  I  mention  only  the  chief  names.  In  this 
review  he  discusses,  in  considerable  detail,  the  regular  imitations  of 
classical  eclogue,  the  more  spontaneous  pastoral  lyric,  and  (though  the 
title  of  his  book  does  not  suggest  it)  the  prose  pastoral-romance.  He 
omits  only  the  pastoral  interludes  in  the  romantic  epics  of  Ariosto, 
Tasso  and  Spenser. 

Mr  Greg  is  too  wise  to  attempt  any  precise  definition  of  what 
took  so  many  forms.  But  he  indicates  clearly  the  peculiar  '  note '  of 
pastoral  poetry,  the  artificiality  of  its  golden  age,  '  the  recognition  of 
a  contrast,  implicit  or  expressed,  between  pastoral  life  and  some  more 
complex  type  of  civilisation.'  Pastoral  poetry  is  neither  the  spontaneous 
utterance  of  simple  and  primitive  feeling,  nor  poetry  so  faithfully  de- 
scriptive of  rural  life  as  Crabbe's.  Pastoral  literature  presents  a  courtly 
and  cultured  dream  of  country  life,  from  which  all  realistic  and  painful 
features  are  deliberately  banished.  With  Theocritus  it  took  its  rise 
in  '  the  contrast  between  the  recollections  of  a  childhood  spent  among 
the  Sicilian  uplands  and  the  crowded  social  and  intellectual  life  of 
Alexandria.'  In  the  hands  of  Virgil  it  began  to  lose  some  of  this 
dream  charm,  becoming  a  more  conscious  playing  at  shepherd  life,  in 
a  word  allegory.  In  the  most  characteristic  Renaissance  pastorals,  the 
Aminta  and  the  Pastor  Fido,  we  get  an  exquisite  combination  of  courtly 
and  refined  sentiment  with  the  feeling  of  a  return  to  nature.  But 
generally  the  '  proper  pleasure '  of  the  pastoral  shows  a  tendency  to 
disappear,  or  change  into  something  else,  in  one  of  two  ways.  The 
convention  becomes  purely  a  convention,  untouched  by  any  feeling  for 
nature,  as  in  the  eclogues  of  Mantuan  and  the  Humanists — and  even  in 
Lycidas  despite  its  compensating  beauties — '  ecloghe  dove  di  pastorale 
non  v'  ha  che  i  nomi  e  le  frasi :  il  resto  e  allegoria  di  cose  contemporanee 
tutt'  altro  che  pastorali.'  On  the  other  hand,  the  natural  feeling  may 
become  too  sincere  fer  its  conventional  setting.  This  is  the  tendency 
of  much  English  pastoral.  Mr  Greg  has  laid  great  stress,  in  his  second 
chapter,  on  the  evidence  of  a  dual  tradition  in  English  pastoral  poetry,  the 
older,  simpler,  more  realistic  pastoralism  of  the  ballads  and  Miracle  plays, 
and  the  conventional,  ideal,  Italian  pastoralism.  To  the  first  he  seems  in 
this  chapter  to  trace  the  vein  of  naive  realism  in  Spenser's  eclogues,  the 
delightful  descriptions  of  Devonshire  scenery  in  Britannia's  Pastorals, 


112  Reviews 

and  the  sincere  and  ardent  enthusiasm  for  nature  of  Wither's  clear,  high 
song;  while  the  same  vein  blends  with  and  heightens  the  more  ideal 
strain  in  the  golden  songs  of  England's  Helicon  and  the  Muses'  Elizium. 
Later,  however,  Mr  Greg  somewhat  modifies  the  impression  given  by 
this  chapter,  and  very  wisely  finds  the  link  between  native  and  Italian 
pastoralism  rather  in  temperament  and  character  than  in  a  literary 
tradition.  The  Englishman  is  at  bottom  a  countryman  rather  than, 
or  always  as  well  as,  a  courtier.  The  only  exception  is  Donne,  and  he 
frankly  detests  the  country.  See  his  epistle  to  Sir  Henry  Wotton 
beginning  'Sir,  more  than  kisses  letters  mingle  soul,'  or  that  to  the 
Countess  of  Bedford  beginning  '  Madam,  you  have  refined  me,'  or  his 
only  pastoral  eclogue  (which  Mr  Greg  has  excusably  ignored)  intro- 
ducing his  second  Epithalamion.  No  English  poet  could  have  written 
the  Aminta.  But  Spenser  and  Drayton,  and  Browne  and  Wither,  are 
interesting  forerunners  of  Thomson  and  Dyer,  Gray  and  Collins,  Cowper 
and  Crabbe. 

Indeed  it  is  this  temperamental  trait  which  gives  its  only  interest 
to  the  history  of  later  pastoralism,  from  Pope  to  Crabbe,  pastoral  poetry 
which  has  lost  entirely  the  courtly  note  and  lingers  merely  as  a  literary 
tradition.  For  it  was  in  connection  with  pastoral  poetry  that  the 
cleavage  first  showed  itself  distinctly  between  the  two  principles  of  neo- 
classicism,  '  follow  nature '  and  '  imitate  the  classics,'  since  '  to  follow 
nature  is  to  follow  them.'  Steele  was  too  English  to  admit  that  to 
follow  nature  in  describing  country  life  was  identical  with  the  mere 
imitation  of  Theocritus  and  Virgil.  The  movement  he  initiated  by  his 
essays  in  The  Guardian  produced  Gay's  Shepherd's  Week  and  Ramsay's 
Gentle  Shepherd,  and  though  the  one  is  a  burlesque,  and  the  other 
a  very  genteel  pastoral,  still  they  were  steps  on  the  way  to  Crabbe's 
rejection  of  'the  sleepy  echoes  of  the  Mantuan  bard,'  and  to  Wordsworth's 
deeper  and  more  philosophical  idealism.  Even  Dr  Johnson,  who  began 
by  being  all  for  the  rules  and  Virgil,  ending  by  detesting  pastoral 
poetry,  in  which  '  there  is  no  nature  for  there  is  no  truth/  and  which  as 
a  literary  artifice  is  '  easy,  vulgar  and  therefore  disgusting.' 

Mr  Greg's  review  of  English  pastoral  poetry  in  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries  is  excellent.  He  lays  special  stress  on  Spenser 
and  Drayton,  and  has  done  justice  to  the  structural  as  well  as  poetical 
capacity  shown  in  the  Shepherd's  Kalender.  If  we  feel  inclined  to  differ 
from  him,  it  is  when  he  appears  to  prefer  the  Shepherd's  Kalender  to  the 
Muses'  Elizium  on  the  ground  of  its  choice  of  subject,  after  previously 
criticising  the  incongruity  of  Spenser's  'pastoral  theology.'  Surely 
Spenser's  is  the  greater  poem  simply  because,  despite  faults  of  im- 
maturity, it  contains  finer  poetry,  deeper  in  feeling,  richer  in  phrase 
and  cadence,  than  the  fresh  and  charming  work  of  Drayton  ever  attains 
to.  But  this  finer  poetry  .is  to  be  sought  not  in  the  controversial 
eclogues  but  in  such  songs  as  those  for  June  and  for  October.  These 
touch  a  deeper  and  more  vibrating  note  than  Drayton's  most  enthu- 
siastic strains.  But  possibly  we  have  misunderstood  Mr  Greg  and  are 
expressing  his  own  feeling  in  a  different  way. 


Reviews  113 

Coming  to  the  drama  Mr  Greg  describes  the  beginnings  of  the 
pastoral  plays  in  Italy  in  such  mythological  plays  as  Politian's  Orfeo, 
and  more  directly  in  the  Egloge  Rappresentative.  The  earliest  English 
pastoral  plays  of  Peele  and  Lyly  were  also  mythological,  but  there 
seems  no  reason  to  demur  to  the  name  '  pastoral '  as  applied  to  Peele's 
Arraignment  of  Paris,  unless  the  name  is  to  be  confined  to  the  Italian 
kind  elaborated  by  Tasso.  The  other  actors  than  the  Gods  are  shepherds 
of  the  pastoral  type.  Indeed  it  affords  an  interesting  illustration  of  the 
spontaneity  with  which  the  pastoral  drama  tended  to  take  shape  that 
Spenser's  eclogues  had  hardly  appeared  before  his  shepherds  were 
utilised  for  dramatic  courtly  entertainment.  Even  without  the  Amyntas 
and  Pastor  Fido  we  should  doubtless  have  had  shepherd  plays  of  more 
than  one  kind. 

In  discussing  these  so  admired  and  so  influential  products  of  the 
Italian  taste  for  artificial  sentiment  and  for  motives  better  adapted  to 
music  than  drama,  Mr  Greg  has  analysed  and  criticised,  with  great 
acumen  and  justice,  the  central  motive  of  both  pieces,  the  conflict 
between  '  feverish  passion  '  and  '  virginal  coldness ' ;  and  the  lurking 
sense  which  they  convey  of  something  a  little  unreal  in  the  latter  and 
not  altogether  lovely  in  the  former.  And  nothing  is  more  interesting 
in  Mr  Greg's  analysis  of  the  English  masterpieces  in  the  kind  than  his 
discussion  of  the  treatment  of  this  motive  by  Fletcher  and  by  Milton. 
No  critic  has  shown  so  fully  and  clearly  the  source  of  Fletcher's  failure, 
despite  the  lyrical  charm  of  his  style  and  verse,  and  the  Theocritean 
grace  of  his  descriptions.  Mr  Greg  finds  the  source  of  that  failure  in 
the  abstract  manner  in  which  Fletcher  set  to  work  to  develop  the 
fundamental  contrast,  and  his  want  of  sympathy  with  the  '  ideal  which 
he  sought  to  honour,' — his  failure,  in  a  word,  to  appreciate  the  beauty 
either  of  chastity  or  of  love.  The  delicate  feeling  of  the  Aminta  is  not 
perhaps  quite  sound  at  core,  but  it  has  a  grace  and  charm  which  is 
wanting  altogether  to  the  cynical  licentiousness  of  Fletcher. 

To  Milton's  Comus  Mr  Greg  is,  I  think,  less  just,  and  partly  because 
he  does  not  make  allowance  for  the  fact  that  it  was  a  protest  against 
courtly  cynicism  and  licence.  Comus  surfers — like  Lycidas,  like  Paradise 
Lost,  like  Samson  Agonistes — from  being  too  polemical.  But  Mr  Greg 
has  duplicated  a  single  charge  which  one  may  and  must  admit.  Comas 
is  not  quite  a  masque  and  not  quite  a  drama.  It  is  not  quite  a  masque 
like  Jonson's  Masque  of  Queens  because  the  change  of  fortune  is  not 
effected  simply  by  a  transformation  scene,  but  is  made  to  depend  on  the 
will  of  the  Lady.  Yet  the  poem  is  a  masque  rather  than  a  drama, 
because  both  the  action  and  persons  are  conceived  abstractly  and 
symbolically  rather  than  concretely.  The  Lady  is  not  Lady  Alice 
Egerton,  a  girl  of  thirteen,  but  Virtue  Militant.  Grant  this,  and  it 
seems  unnecessary  to  accuse  Milton  further  of  bad  taste  in  making 
her  speak  beyond  her  years.  Some  awkwardness  there  is  doubtless  in 
the  identification,  but  it  is  not  enough  to  mar  the  splendour  of  Milton's 
defence  of  Chastity,  the  magnificent  poetry  in  which  he  has  set  forth 
the  Puritan  ideal,  which  Gardiner,  with  perhaps  more  strict  propriety, 

M.  L.  R.  iv.  8 


114  Reviews 

saw  incarnate  in  Archbishop  Abbot  looking  on  at  the  marriage  of  the 
Earl  of  Somerset  and  Lady  Frances  Howard. 

To  the  beauty  of  Milton's  poetry,  indeed,  Mr  Greg  does  ample 
justice,  as  to  the  grace  of  Fletcher's,  the  pathetic  loveliness  of  Jonson's 
fragment — for  the  whole  of  which  one  would  give  a  dozen  Alchemists — 
and  the  blithe  and  pleasing  Amyntas  of  Randolph.  Indeed  Mr  Homer 
Smith  might  plead  that  the  Note  at  page  308  has  some  applicability  to 
Mr  Greg's  own  criticism  of  The  Faithful  Shepherdess  and  Comus.  In 
both  he  does  a  little  separate  the  substance  from  the  form. 

These  are  the  most  direct  inheritors  of  the  Italian  tradition,  though 
Mr  Greg  has  shown  how  independently  the  Englishmen  adapted  the 
borrowed  form  to  the  traditions  of  the  native  stage.  One  departure 
from  these  traditions  which  betrays  the  Italian  origin  of  these  plays 
he  has  not  deemed  worthy  of  remark,  their  strict  adherence  to  the  rule 
of  twenty-four  hours.  Dr  R.  Otto,  in  his  preface  to  an  edition  of  the 
Sylvanire,  has  pointed  out  that  it  was  the  admiration  felt  for  the 
Aminta  and  the  Pastor  Fido  which  revived  in  the  earlier  seventeenth 
century,  in  France,  discussion  of  the  Unities,  after  Hardy  had  given 
them  the  go-by.  And  for  this  reason  discussion  turned  at  first  on  the 
unity  of  time  alone.  '  C'etait  1'unique  regie  que  Ton  connut  en  ce 
temps-la,'  says  Corneille  in  the  Examen  de  Clitandre,  and  it  is  the  only 
one  mentioned  in  Mairet's  preface,  with  which  began  the  movement 
that  closed  with  the  condemnation  of  the  Cid.  No  such  effects  followed 
in  England.  Ben  Jonson  had  no  Academy  and  Richelieu  to  back  him. 
But  even  in  lawless  England,  the  rule  of  the  'astrological  day'  was 
recognised  as  an  essential  feature  of  the  Italian  pastoral  drama. 

And  speaking  of  France  brings  me  to  one  small  addition  which 
might  be  made  to  Mr  Greg's  exhaustive  thesis.  In  his  review  of  those 
hybrid  pastoral  plays  (Chap,  vi)  in  which  chivalrous  elements,  borrowed 
from  the  romances,  are  mingled  with  the  purely  pastoral  scenes  and 
incidents,  Mr  Greg  has  ignored  the  possible  influence  of  the  con- 
temporary French  drama.  Both  pastoral  plays,  and  tragi-comedies 
combining  chivalrous,  pastoral  and  humorous  elements,  were  the  rule 
in  France  till  the  Sophonisbe  (1635)  and  the  Cid  (1636)  established  the 
vogue  of  tragedy.  In  reading  Mr  Greg's  analysis  of  plays  in  the  second 
section  of  Chapter  vi  we  noted  several  little  points  of  resemblance,  and 
came  upon  one  clear  case  of  unrecognised  borrowing.  Of  course  it  is 
always  to  be  remembered  that  in  tracing  an  English  play  to  a  French 
source  we  are  not  excluding  the  possibility  of  going  a  step  further  and 
finding  an  Italian  original. 

The  mad  lover  who  conceives  himself  in  Elysium,  drawn  with  real 
dramatic  touches  by  Randolph  in  the  Amyntas  (1632-35),  and  more 
artificially  by  Cowley  in  Love's  Riddle  (1638),  appears  in  Rotrou's 
L'Nypocondriaque  (1628),  and  the  same  author's  Laure  persecutee 
(1638).  The  latter  play  is,  however,  based  on  Lope  de  Vega's  Laura 
perseguida.  Probably  the  type  has  some  original  Italian  source.  The 
case  of  undoubted  plagiarism  from  the  French,  which  has  hitherto 
escaped  attention,  is  Rutter's  Shepherd's  Holiday  (1635).  Rutter 


Reviews  115 

translated  the  Cid,  and  was,  therefore,  presumably  familiar  with  French 
plays.  At  any  rate  the  purely  pastoral  portion  of  his  drama — the 
story  of  Nerina  and  her  lovers,  and  of  the  poisoned  mirror — is, 
throughout,  an  adaptation,  often  a  paraphrase,  occasionally  a  transla- 
tion, of  Mairet's  Silvanire  (1629).  It  cannot  be  said  that  in  general 
Rutter  has  improved  on  the  original.  The  scenes  are  shortened, 
with  the  result  that  the  development  of  motives  is  made  more  abrupt. 
The  courtly  incidents  which  Rutter  has  loosely  grafted  on  to  Mairet's 
pastoral  have  a  general  resemblance  to  the  same  poet's  more  romantic 
and  interesting  tiylvie  (1626).  There  a  prince  (as  here  a  princess) 
leaves  the  court  for  love  of  a  shepherdess,  and  incurs  the  wrath  of 
his  father.  The  denouement,  however,  is  different,  and  Rutter's  solution 
may  be  his  own  or  have  a  different  origin.  Cowley  is,  through  Rutter, 
indebted  for  his  best  scene  (Loves  Riddle,  iv.  1)  to  the  Silvanire 
{in.  7).  Mairet's  own  play,  it  may  be  added,  is  the  recast  of  a  play  in 
blank  verse  written  by  the  author  of  the  Astree,  at  the  request  of 
Marie  de  Medicis.  There  may  be  some  other  instances  of  borrowings 
from  the  French.  Mr  Greg  has  throughout  had  Italy  mainly  in  view. 
The  first  beginnings  of  French  influence  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I  are 
worthy  of  note. 

Every  student  of  the  Elizabethan  drama  must  be  grateful  to  Mr  Greg 
for  this  carefully  developed  and  discriminating  study  of  the  diverse 
elements  which  combined  to  produce  the  various  forms  of  the  English 
pastoral  drama,  and  his  admirable  criticism  of  its  masterpieces.  If  his 
work  has  a  fault  it  seems  to  me  to  be  an  occasional  disproportion  of 
style  to  subject,  and  an  occasional  over-emphasis  in  the  expression  of 
his  divergence  from  the  views  of  others. 

H.  J.  C.  GRIERSON. 

ABERDEEN. 


An  Enterlude  of  Welth  and  Helth.  Eine  englische  Moralitat  des  xvi. 
Jahrhunderts,  kritisch  herausgegeben  von  F.  HOLTHAUSEN.  (Fest- 
schrift der  Universitat  Kiel.)  Kiel:  Lipsius  and  Tischer.  1908. 
8vo.  66  pp. 

'Die  lange  verschollene  Moralitat  Welth  and  Helth  ist  in  einem 
alten  Blackletter-druck  in  4°  erhalten,  von  dem  das  einzige  bisher 
bekannte  Exemplar  1906  in  Irland  gefunden  wurde.'  When  writing 
this  Prof.  Holthausen  was,  of  course,  ignorant  of  the  Mostyn  sale  of 
June,  1907.  On  that  occasion  another  and  better  copy  of  the  original 
was  acquired  by  Mr  T.  J.  Wise.  The  fact  is  important,  for  the  new 
copy  not  only  determines  a  number  of  readings  which  are  doubtful  in 
the  British  Museum  copy,  but  also  presents  certain  actual  variants. 
A  full  collation  has  been  published  in  Part  I  of  the  Malone  Society's 
Collections,  but  it  may  be  worth  while  here  t9  discuss  the  bearings  of 
.the  new  evidence  upon  the  construction  of  a  critical  text. 

8—2 


116  Reviews 

The  most  important  new  point  is  the  restoration  of  the  line  (755* 
of  the  numbering  here  adopted)  cut  away  in  the  Museum  copy.  This 
reads : 

remedi     Thou  canst  play  the  knaue,  and  so  ye  can  do  all 

which  completes  the  sense  and  sets  the  speakers  right.  But  there  are 
a  number  of  other  passages  in  which  the  readings  have  to  be  modified. 
There  is  a  case  in  1.  123,  where  the  text  as  given  by  Prof.  Holthausen 
reads : 

As  to  bylde  churches  and  make  bye-wayes  ? 
Such  deedes  mans  soule  doth  saue. 

In  a  note  he  remarks :  '  Dass  die  Anlage  von  Nebenwegen  als  verdienst- 
liches  Werk  gait,  ist  kulturhistorisch  interessant.  Gibt  es  hierfiir 
weitere  Belege  ? '  But  the  new  copy  of  the  original  shows  that  the 
reading  should  be  not  '  bye  wayes '  but  '  hye  wayes.'  In  1.  402  the 
editor  has  substituted  '  sonck '  for  '  lonck/  and  '  sonck '  is  now  seen  to 
be  the  true  reading  of  the  original.  He  has  again  inserted  what  is  the 
true  reading  in  1.  764,  namely  '  Mot '  for  '  Mor.' 

There  remain  the  cases  in  which  the  readings  of  the  two  copies  of 
the  original  differ.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases  the  British  Museum 
copy,  though  the  worse  printed,  is  the  more  correct.  There  are,  however, 
a  few  cases  in  which  that  belonging  to  Mr  Wise  preserves  a  better 
reading.  The  only  ones  of  any  importance  are  '  at  this '  for  '  att  his ' 
on  the  title-page,  '  ic  veil '  for  '  icvell '  in  1.  399,  '  Wyll '  for  '  Wytte  "  in 
1.  368  (all  obvious  corrections  already  adopted  by  Prof.  Holthausen),  and 
lastly  '  may  say '  for  '  mayay '  in  1.  466,  which  substantiates  the  emenda- 
tion proposed  in  the  Malone  Society  reprint  of  the  play  (also  adopted  in 
the  present  edition). 

A  feature  of  the  piece  are  the  passages  in  very  corrupt  stage  Dutch 
and  Spanish.  Reconstructions  by  Professors  Bang  and  Brandin  have 
appeared  in  the  Malone  Society's  Collections  already  mentioned.  Prof. 
Holthausen  has  also  tackled  the  problem,  and  produced  his  own  answer. 
This  kind  of  conjecture  forms  an  interesting,  indeed  rather  a  fascinating, 
game,  but  no  sort  of  finality  is  conceivable  in  the  results.  This,  of 
course,  is  no  reflection  on  those  that  play  at  it,  but  belongs  to  the 
nature  of  the  subject.  How  much  the  present  editor  has  done  for  the 
elucidation  of  the  text  will  be  apparent  to  anyone  who  goes  through  his 
six  closely  printed  pages  of  notes.  In  1.  424  '  drouse '  is  taken  to  be 
'  throes ' ;  a  suggestion  already  made  in  Notes  and  Queries  in  July,  1907 
(p.  73).  In  1.  8,  '  kepe '  for  '  care,'  and  in  some  minor  points  Prof. 
Holthausen  anticipates  Mr  Hunter's  notes  in  the  last  number  of  this. 
Review. 

The  introduction  contains  a  general  account  of  the  piece,  including 
a  useful  survey  of  the  metrical  form.  Incidentally  the  editor  points  out 
that  the  statement  on  the  title-page  that  '  Foure  may  easily  play  this 
Playe'  is  incorrect,  since  at  one  point  Wealth,  Health,  Liberty,  Will 
and  Wit  are  all  on  the  stage  together.  However,  Prof.  Holthausen 
would  be  the  first  to  admit  that  much  work  remains  to  be  done  on  this 


Reviews  117 

play.  Particularly  its  literary  relations  require  to  be  studied.  We 
know  that  the  piece  was  in  existence  in  1557,  for  it  was  entered  by 
Waley  on  the  Stationers'  Register  soon  after  July  19  that  year.  It 
follows  that  the  prayer  for  Elizabeth  at  the  end  (1.  943),  which  places 
the  extant  edition  after  Nov.  17,  1558,  must  be  an  insertion.  This 
being  so  there  is  no  reason  why  the  mention  of 'our  soueraine  Ladye 
the  Queene '  in  1.  85,  which  would  place  the  original  text  at  the  earliest 
in  Mary's  reign,  should  not  also  be  a  late  addition.  (Curiously  enough 
in  this  passage  '  Queene '  rimes  with  '  at  ene '  = '  at  one,'  an  expression 
not  elsewhere  recorded  after  1400.  Moreover  in  the  previous  line — 
'  With  all  the  counsel  and  all  that  with  them  bene ' — it  is  hardly  natural 
to  make  '  them '  refer  to  '  counsel.'  It  almost  looks  as  though  the 
original  had  read  '  King  and  Queen '  in  1.  85.)  But  one  would  hardly 
expect  to  find  approving  mention  of  the  riches  of  ecclesiastics  (1.  563), 
between  the  Reformation  and  Mary's  accession,  especially  from  a  writer 
whose  sympathies,  as  Prof.  Holthausen  points  out,  seem  to  be  Catholic. 
The  archaism  of  much  of  the  language  tempts  one  to  throw  back  the 
date,  while  the  deliberate  modernization  of  such  readings  as  that  in  1.  8 
('care'  for  'kepe')  suggests  that  the  text  was  once  a  good  deal  more 
archaic  than  it  now  appears. 

The  question  is  of  interest  from  its  bearing  upon  a  far  more  important 
problem.  There  is  a  very  significant  group  of  moralities,  which  make 
up  by  their  inordinate  individual  length  for  the  comparative  scarcity  of 
the  type.  I  mean  the  political  moralities.  Three  great  examples  have 
hitherto  been  known:  Skelton's  Magnificence,  c.  1520;  Sir  David 
Lyndsay's  Satire  of  Three  Estates,  1540;  and  the  anonymous  Respublica 
of  1553.  The  shortest  of  these  runs  to  some  two  thousand  lines,  the 
longest  to  between  four  and  five  thousand.  To  these  must  now  be  added 
Wealth  and  Health,  which  is  happily  under  one  thousand.  But  this 
is  not  all.  Anyone  who  reads  Wealth  and  Health  and  Magnificence 
together  cannot  help,  I  think,  being  struck  by  the  fact  of  some  evident 
but  by  no  means  easily  determinable  relation  between  the  two.  Liberty 
is  a  character  in  both  plays,  and  I  believe  nowhere  else ;  Felicity  in 
Magnificence  is  hardly  more  than  an  alias  of  Wealth,  as  appears  from 
the  very  first  stanza.  Moreover  the  second  scene  of  Skelton's  play  is  a 
contention  between  Felicity  and  Liberty,  which  strongly  recalls  that 
in  Wealth  and  Health.  There  is  also  one  curious  little  point  that 
becomes  suggestive  when  considered  in  this  light.  In  Magnificence 
there  suddenly  occurs  the  puzzling  remark :  '  It  was  Flemying  hyght 
Hansy.'  There  is  nothing  to  lead  up  to  it,  and  it  leads  to  nothing,  but 
anyone  with  the  other  play  in  mind  will  not  fail  to  think  of  the  drunken 
Fleming  Hance1.  Did  some  later  writer,  making  a  popularized  adapta- 
tion of  Skelton's  play,  develop  this  mysterious  hint  into  a  comic  and 
satiric  part ;  or  did  Skelton  take  the  suggestion  for  his  spacious  morality 
from  an  earlier  and  slighter  piece,  and  preserve  in  this  single  allusion  a 

1  I  owe  this  point  to  Mr  A.  W.  Pollard.  Shortly  after  the  publication  of  the  Malone 
Society  reprint  of  Wealth  and  Health  we  both  happened  to  be  reading  Magnificence  and 
were  independently  struck  by  the  obvious  connection  between  the  two  plays. 


118  Reviews 

character  he  had  rejected  from  the  scheme  of  his  work  ?  This  is  a 
question  which  the  historian  of  the  drama  will  some  day  have  to 
decide. 

W.  W.  GREG. 
LONDON. 


The  Partiall  Law.  A  Tragi-Comedy  (circa  1615-30).  Edited  by 
BERTRAM  DOBELL.  London:  Published  by  the  Editor,  1908.  4to. 
xix  + 130  pp. 

Mr  Dobell  is  to  be  congratulated  on  this  addition  to  his  finds  in 
seventeenth  century  literature.  While  by  no  means  a  great  play,  it  is 
extremely  well  constructed  in  the  exaggerated  style  of  adventurous 
romance  and  is  eminently  readable.  Preserved  in  a  professional  scribe's 
copy  with  a  few  presumably  autograph  corrections,  it  offers  few  clues  of 
authorship.  I  am  inclined  to  agree  with  the  editor  that  it  is  not  the 
work  of  any  recognised  dramatist,  but  rather  of  one  of  the  courtly 
amateurs  of  Charles'  reign.  He  was  however  a  very  able  amateur. 
Granted  that,  the  construction  would  be  by  no  means  beyond  his  powers, 
and  itself  perhaps  suggests  rather  the  care  of  the  study  than  the  more 
ready  methods  of  the  professional  writers.  The  composition  is  by  no 
means  inept  either  as  regards  verse  or  style,  though  the  author  occa- 
sionally allows  himself  rather  startling  liberties  in  metre  and  grammar 
alike. 

The  plot  has  a  resemblance  to  that  of  Much  Ado,  though  whether 
the  author  was  aware  that  he  was  using  the  same  material  as  Shake- 
speare may  be  doubted.  His  direct  source  seems  to  be  the  Ariodante 
and  Ginevra  episode  in  the  fifth  canto  of  the  Orlando  Furioso.  On  the 
other  hand,  as  Mr  Dobell  points  out,  there  is  pretty  clear  evidence  of 
familiarity  with  Pericles  and  possibly  As  You  Like  It.  There  also 
occur  a  few  Shakespearian  phrases,  but  these  may  have  already  been 
current. 

The  text  stands  in  need  of  a  little  editing.  I,  ii  is  really  a  con- 
tinuation of  I,  i ;  the  speakers  do  not  leave  the  stage — possibly  a  case  of 
'  dramatic  enjambement '  by  means  of  the  traverse,  in,  iii  and  iv,  v 
should  each  be  split  up  into  two  scenes.  There  is  some  difficulty  as  to 
the  three  country-women ;  are  they  the  same  throughout  ?  P.  6,  1.  23, 
'  be  your  secret '  should  read  '  be  you  secret ' ;  p.  62,  1.  7,  'And  with  him 
send'  should  be  'And  will  him  send.'  P.  85,  11.  15-6  are  from  Guarini, 
'  Molti  averne,  uno  goderne,  e  cangiar  spesso.'  P.  Ill,  1.  28,  s.  d. '  pluckes 
out '  is  probably  a  mere  slip  for  'pluckes  off.'  Some  of  the  notes  require 
reconsideration.  P.  98,  11.  13-4 : 

If  none  should  take  her  cause  in  hand,  I 
Would  have  had  been  the  man  my  selfe. 

Bad  verse  and  bad  grammar.     Mr  Dobell  proposes  : 

If  none  should  take  her  cause  in  hand,  I  would 
Have  been  the  man  my  selfe. 


Reviews  119 

With  any  ordinary  author  one  would  have  thought  the  emendation 
certain.  Compare,  however,  p.  106,  1.  4 : 

I  should  not  have  had  given  so  true  a  test ; 
and  p.  114,1.  13: 

Might  have  had  struck  me  dead  ; 
while  for  the  metre  compare  such  a  passage  as  (p.  84,  11.  7-8) : 

what  colour'd  gowne 
Her  Grace  puts  on  to  day,  what  knots 
What  fashion'd  ruffe  :   be  lowly  cringes, 
Kisses  her  glove,  &c. 

Again,  p.  115,  1.  20,  'guiderdon'  =  guerdon.  There  need  be  no  difficulty 
about  this,  it  is  simply  the  Italian  '  guiderdone.'  There  is  a  misprint 
on  p.  xviii.  In  line  3  of  note  'Act  in'  should  be  '  Act  iv.' 

W.  W.  GREG. 
LONDON. 


Biographia  Liter  aria.  By  S.  T.  COLERIDGE.  Edited  with  his  Aes- 
thetical  Essays  by  J.  SHAWCROSS.  2  vols.  Oxford:  Clarendon 
Press,  1907.  8vo.  xcvii+272  and  334  pp. 

Coleridge  s  Literary  Criticism.  With  an  Introduction  by  J.  W.  MACKAIL. 
London:  Henry  Fro wde,  1908.  8vo.  xx  +  266  pp. 

The  Indebtedness  of  Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge  to  August  Wilhelm  von. 
Schlegel.  By  ANNA  A.  HELMHOLTZ,  University  of  Wisconsin,. 
Thesis.  (Bulletin  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  No.  163  :  Philo- 
logy and  Literature  Series,  Vol.  ill,  No.  4,  pp.  273-370.)  Madison,, 
Wisconsin,  1907.  8vo.  98  pp. 

The  renaissance  of  Coleridge  is  now  assured,  after  a  phase  of  ill- 
informed  pity  or  mistrust  which  was  chiefly  due  to  his  broken  life  and 
to  the  miscarriage  of  his  big  speculative  system.  But  the  absence,  in 
the  cultivated  as  distinct  from  the  studious  part  of  English  society,  of 
any  true  loyalty  to  knowledge  and  inquiry,  is  painfully  seen  in  the 
power  of  jokes  and  caricatures  to  delay,  though  not  for  ever,  the 
recognition  of  a  spirit  like  Coleridge.  Two  men  of  letters  helped  to 
mislead  public  opinion.  Carlyle's  famed  portrait  in  the  Life  of  Sterling 
of  Coleridge  on  Highgate  Hill  did  harm,  because  there  is  no  such 
portrait  (if  we  except  Hazlitt's)  of  Coleridge  in  the  hour  of  his  first 
prophetic  radiance  to  hang  beside  it  for  corrective.  Carlyle  coarsely 
dismissed  him  as  a  weak,  sensual,  and  futile  personage,  as  the  Conversa- 
tions with  Sir  C.  Gavan  Duffy  prove;  and  Matthew  Arnold  jauntily 
dismissed  him  as  'poet  and  philosopher,  wrecked  in  a  mist  of  opium.' 
But  these  critics,  each  a  professional  moralist  in  his  own  line,  and  each 
incapable  of  forming  or  even  of  valuing  a  clear  philosophical  conception, 
were  really  themselves  fogged  by  the  mist  of  Coleridge's  opium.  He, 


120  Reviews 

with  his  flawed  nature  and  frustrate  schemes,  was  at  his  best  a  greater 
artist,  and  was  throughout  a  deeper  and  more  permanently  inspiring 
critic,  than  either  Arnold  or  Carlyle.  To  draw  out  fully  what  he 
achieved  as  a  writer,  and  what  mental  forces,  still  at  play,  he  quickened 
as  a  thinker,  is  a  task  so  far  unperformed,  requiring  subtlety  and 
patience  and  no  small  measure  of  philosophic  and  literary  sense.  For 
such  a  work  the  labours  of  the  last  fifteen  years  furnish  precious  and 
needful  material.  The  late  Mr  Dykes  Campbell's  memoir  and  edition 
of  the  poems  stand  fast ;  their  exhaustive  and  detective  scholarship  will 
not  soon  be  matched.  Coleridge's  Letters,  and  the  fragments  of  talk 
and  writing  published  as  Anima  Poetae,  have  been  faithfully  edited  by 
his  grandson,  Mr  Ernest  Hartley  Coleridge,  and  both  works  are  indis- 
pensable documents.  We  owe  to  the  same  pious  skill  a  definitive 
edition  of  Christabel.  Many  are  the  polite  essayists  and  selectors ;  but 
to  the  names  of  these  two  presenters,  to  use  the  old  term,  of  Coleridge, 
is  now  to  be  added  that  of  Mr  Shawcross,  the  editor  of  Biographia 
Literaria  and  the  expounder  of  Coleridge's  philosophy  of  art.  His  notes 
and  elucidations  are  worthy,  it  is  no  extravagance  to  say,  of  Pattison  or 
of  the  good  Shakespearian  commentators.  He  is  patient  and  cautious 
in  exegesis  and  has  the  philosophic  mind :  and  he  is  so  well  seen  in  the 
lore  surrounding  Coleridge  and  Wordsworth,  as  well  as  in  their  actual 
writings,  that  our  one  regret  is  his  omission  to  give  us  more  purely 
literary  comment  of  his  own.  His  notes  show  him  qualified  to  do  so. 
He  has  acutely  pointed  out,  for  example,  how  Coleridge  mistakenly 
saddled  Wordsworth  with  an  objection  to  poetic  style  in  itself,  while 
Wordsworth  only  contended  for  a  community  of  vocabulary  between 
poetry  and  prose.  And  the  editorial  note  on  The  Thorn,  a  poem  which 
Wordsworth  altered  after  his  friend's  objections  were  known  to  him, 
may  be  cited  as  a  further  example.  Coleridge  had  said  that  '  in  a  poem, 
still  more  in  a  lyric  poem... it  is  not  possible  to  imitate  truly  a  dull 
and  garrulous  discourser,  without  repeating  the  effects  of  dullness  and 
garrulity.'  The  note  runs: 

'Coleridge  here  fails  to  take  into  consideration  (what  a  careful 
perusal  of  Wordsworth's  introductory  note  to  The  Thorn  must  have 
made  clear  to  him)  Wordsworth's  real  object  in  the  poem.  This  was  to 
represent  the  facts  as  they  actually  appeared  to  the  mariner  (a  man 
with  a  "  reasonable  share  of  imagination "),  and  as  he  would  have 
actually  portrayed  them.  But  Wordsworth's  dramatic  gift  was  not 
great  enough  to  enable  him  to  do  this  successfully,  and  the  fact  that 
the  prosaic  lines,  to  which  Coleridge  alludes,  are  felt  as  prosaic,  is  due 
to  the  inability  of  Wordsworth  really  to  transport  himself  into  the  state 
of  mind  which  he  wishes  to  represent.  For  the  consequence  is  that  in 
the  dull  lines  we  see  the  prosaic  mariner,  and  in  the  fine  lines  the 
imaginative  poet,  and  do  not  accept  them  in  their  unity,  as  characteristic 
of  the  particular  mood  and  temperament  from  which  they  are  supposed 
to  emanate.  Wordsworth  would  not  therefore  have  mended  matters 
by  substituting  a  more  poetical  language  in  these  passages'  (Vol.  n, 
pp.  274-5). 


Reviews  121 

The  chief  original  labours  of  Mr  Shawcross  are  on  the  philosophic 
side.  It  is  well  known  how  Coleridge  characteristically  worked  back- 
wards in  composing  the  Biographia.  He  planned  a  collection  of  his 
poems;  the  preface  grew  into  a  'Sketch  of  my  Literary  Life  and 
Opinions ' — especially  opinions  concerning  the  principles  of  poetry.  But 
behind  this  poetic  lay  a  psychology,  and  behind  this  again  a  metaphysic, 
which  Coleridge  was  tempted  on  to  expound.  The  preface  thus  became 
a  book,  or  rather  a  medley,  of  anecdote,  philosophy,  and  criticism.  And 
the  link  between  the  psychology  and  the  criticism  lay  in  the  grand 
distinction  between  '  Fancy  and  Imagination.'  To  unfold  this  involved  a 
commentary  on  the  whole  Associational  theory  of  Hartley,  through  which 
Coleridge  had  worked  his  way.  It  is  this  abstruse  but  vital  distinction 
that  Mr  Shawcross  has  explained  so  well,  in  a  style  somewhat  severe 
and  slow-moving,  but  serried  and  lucid  nevertheless.  He  is  well  versed 
in  the  German  philosophers  Kant,  Schelling  and  Maass,  from  whom 
Coleridge  drew  or  with  whom  he  coincided  independently;  and  his 
elaborate  statement  of  that  coincidence,  and  of  the  growth  of  the  theory 
of  Imagination,  throws  a  fresh  light  upon  the  devious  process,  half 
intellectual  and  half  emotional,  of  Coleridge's  thought.  The  statement, 
indeed,  is  more  coherent  than  anything  in  Coleridge,  and  must  be 
regarded  rather  as  bringing  his  views  into  more  light  than  he  himself 
vouchsafed,  or  perhaps  possessed,  than  as  merely  a  digest.  The  contra- 
dictions and  ragged  edges  of  the  theory — as,  for  example,  where  the 
relationship  of  beauty  and  artistic  pleasure  is  discussed,  and  where  it  is 
not  clear  which  is  the  end  and  which  is  the  means — are  excellently 
brought  out.  So,  too,  is  the  difference  between  '  the  imagination  as 
universally  active  in  consciousness  (creative  in  that  it  externalises  the 
world  of  objects  by  opposing  it  to  the  self)  and  the  same  faculty,  in  a 
heightened  power,  as  creative  in  a  poetic  sense'  (Vol.  I,  p.  Ixvii);  and 
the  further  distinction  between  Imagination,  as  Coleridge,  starting  from 
Bichter  and  other  Germans,  conceived  it,  and  Fancy,  is  made  plainer. 
'Fancy  is,  in  fact,  the  faculty  of  mere  images  or  impressions,  as 
imagination  is  the  faculty  of  intuitions.  It  is  in  this  sense  that 
Coleridge  sees  in  their  opposition  an  emblem  of  the  wider  contrast 
between  the  mechanical  philosophy  and  the  dynamic,  the  false  and 
the  true'  (Vol.  I,  p.  Ixviii). 

The  debt  of  Coleridge  to  Schelling  is  a  vexed  matter,  but  Mr  Shaw- 
cross pronounces  carefully  upon  it.  He  thinks  that  Coleridge  is  not 
'  guilty  either  of  insincerity  or  of  self-deception  when  he  declares  that 
the  similarity  of  his  philosophical  standpoint  to  that  of  Schelling  is  a 
matter  of  coincidence ' ;  that  he  regarded  truth,  at  the  same  time,  as 
common  property ;  and  that  he  still  '  was  willing  enough  to  concede  to 
Schelling  the  general  credit  of  the  ideas  which  they  shared '  (Vol.  I, 
p.  244).  His  mind,  we  may  say,  worked  in  the  sphere  of  philosophy 
much  as  that  of  Milton  or  Tennyson  worked  in  the  sphere  of  poetry- 
adopting,  adapting,  transforming,  and  so  virtually  originating.  The 
distinction  between  fancy  and  imagination  probably  owes  its  value  less 
to  psychological  precision — for  after  all  fancy  is  only  a  low  power  and  a 


122  Reviews 

crude  working,  even  on  Coleridge's  showing,  of  imagination, — than  to 
the  way  in  which  Coleridge  made  it  a  type  of  the  chasm  between  the 
mechanical  and  the  dynamic  or  spiritual  points  of  view  generally,  and 
to  the  insight  with  which  he  applied  it  to  the  poets  themselves.  His 
analysis  and  vindication  both  of  Wordsworth  and  Shakespeare  are  the 
most  determined  and  successful  efforts,  it  may  be,  in  the  English 
language  to  find  a  ground  and  reason  for  our  immediate  aesthetic 
instinct  which  greets  those  poets,  at  their  highest,  as  among  the  highest : 
and  both  analysis  and  vindication  hinge  on  the  theory  of  imagi- 
nation. Nor  could  there  be  any  surer  refutation,  by  the  way,  of  the 
temper  which  makes  the  judgment  of  poetry  as  purely  subjective  and 
personal  as  the  taste  for  vintages,  and  which  rules  out  any  philosophical 
groundwork,  or  'poetic,'  just  beyond  the  arbitrary  point  where  the 
reasoning  outstrips  the  brains  of  the  critic  himself.  The  example  of 
Coleridge  shows  that  there  need  be  no  real  break  in  the  long  chain 
between  metaphysics  and  appreciation.  This  truth  is  disguised  by  the 
fact  that  there  are  so  few  persons  able  to  deal  with  both,  and  that  it  is 
common  to  deal  capably  with  the  one  and  not  with  the  other.  Coleridge 
is  so  great,  because  he  can  deal,  instinctively  and  consummately,  with 
both ;  because  the  metaphysician  in  him  forecasts,  and  justifies,  and 
remembers  the  poet,  while  the  poet  is  too  sure  of  his  art  to  let  his 
metaphysics  clog  it.  Among  Mr  Shawcross's  services  will  be  counted 
the  reprinting,  with  due  and  subtle  comment,  of  Coleridge's  four  kindred 
fragments,  On  the  Principles  of  Genial  Criticism,  An  Essay  on  Taste,  An 
Essay  on  Beauty,  and  On  Poesy  or  A  rt.  The  last  of  these  touches  and 
flashes  light  upon  almost  every  great  issue  of  aesthetic  discussion — the 
nature  of  artistic  pleasure,  the  demarcation  between  the  various  arts, 
and  the  Kantian  conception,  which  Coleridge  took  with  a  gloss  of  his 
own,  of  Beauty  as  the  source  of  'disinterested,'  that  is  of  undesiring, 
pleasure. 

There  is  still  room  for  a  corpus  of  Coleridge's  utterances  on  art  and 
its  principles  and  of  his  sayings  on  books  and  their  writers ;  and  this 
corpus,  for  which  the  materials  are  very  scattered,  should  certainly  be 
made.  It  would  contain,  besides  the  material  used  by  Mr  Shawcross, 
Coleridge's  lectures  on  literature  (almost  all  reported,  and  only  ap- 
proximately in  his  own  words),  and  also  the  remarks  thereon  in  his 
letters,  table  talk,  notes,  and  numerous  MS.  marginalia.  Only  from 
these  broken  lines  and  isolated  points  of  light  should  we  realise  the 
wide  curve  in  which  his  intellect  projected  itself — both  extensively,  in 
point  of  actual  reading  and  assimilation,  and  intensively,  in  point  of 
insight  and  power.  The  anthology  published  by  Mr  Henry  Frowde  is 
excellent  within  its  limits  of  space,  and  is  well  arranged  by  its  unnamed 
editor,  who  wisely  '  sacrifices  all  idea  of  balance  to  the  preservation  of 
a  scheme  of  development.'  There  are,  first  of  all,  passages  on  the 
principles  of  poetry — these  are  too  scanty;  then  the  chapters  on  Words- 
worth ;  passages  and  sayings,  often  very  brief,  on  other  authors,  chiefly 
English ;  and  longer  ones  (the  most  valuable,  if  not  all  that  are  of 
value)  on  Shakespeare  and  the  '  Elizabethan '  dramatists.  We  find, 


Reviews  123 

however,  but  a  scrap  of  the  lecture  (Lit.  Remains,  Vol.  I,  pp.  230  ff.)  on 
the  evolution  of  English  prose,  which  is  justly  singled  out  by  Prof. 
Saintsbury  in  his  History  of  Criticism  (Vol.  in,  p.  227),  and  which  is 
a  wonderful  little  map,  or  rather  balloon  view,  of  a  territory  never 
explored  before  and  never  fully  explored  since — as  Prof.  Saintsbury, 
who  has  done  so  much  expert  and  careful  surveying  of  the  same 
territory,  would  be,  we  think,  the  first  to  admit.  The  Introduction  by 
Prof.  J.  W.  Mackail  is  half-satisfying.  He  repeats,  aptly  enough  and  in 
his  own  way,  what  has  been  said  before  in  an  essay  of  real  power  by 
Oscar  Wilde ; — that  '  the  critical  faculty  as  applied  to  the  masterpieces 
of  literature,  and  still  more  the  critical  faculty  as  applied  to  the  art  of 
literature  itself,  is  akin  to  the  creative  faculty  of  the  artist.... A  sharp 
line  can  be  drawn  between  the  artist  and  critic  where  they  work  in 
different  material,  as  in  the  criticism  of  painting,  or  of  music.  No  such 
line  can  be  drawn  in  literary  criticism ;  for  the  critic  works  in  the  same 
material,  and  his  criticism,  so  far  as  it  is  vital... is  also  a  work  of  art. 
Criticism  of  literature  is  literature.'  This  is  very  well ;  and  the  remarks 
that  follow  on  the  fragmentary  and  unequal  character  of  Coleridge's 
judgments  are  equally  true,  indeed  are  self-evident.  But  much  of  the 
Introduction  seems  an  attempt  to  slight  the  poetic  theory,  that  is,  the 
general  philosophic  groundwork,  of  Coleridge,  while  praising  many  of 
those  particular  opinions,  in  which  '  he  abandons  himself,'  as  Mr  Mackail 
happily  puts  it,  '  to  his  own  poetical  sensitiveness,  and  his  unequalled 
power  of  making  language  a  vehicle  of  emotion.'  Such  is  the  casual 
sentence  on  Romeo  and  Juliet :  '  It  is  a  spring  day,  gusty  and  beautiful 
in  the  morn,  and  closing  like  an  April  evening  with  the  song  of  the 
nightingale.'  All  that  Mr  Mackail  says  in  this  sense,  on  the  worth  and 
beauty  of  Coleridge's  personal  impressions  of  art,  and  of  the  words  that 
he  finds  for  them,  is  sound  and  felicitous.  Nearly  all  he  says  on  the 
weakness  of  Coleridge  as  an  expounder  of  poetic  is  less  sound,  and  the 
antidote  is  the  study  of  Mr  Shawcross's  preface,  which,  as  the  editor's 
note  on  p.  xx  of  this  selection  shows,  came  out  before  the  selection  was 
made.  The  strictures  of  the  connoisseur  cannot  stand,  nay  they  fall 
down  into  fragments,  before  the  steady  exposition  of  the  student  who 
has  really  shown  us  the  way  through  the  documents  and  has  felt  and 
brought  out  the  suggestiveness  of  Coleridge's  central  conception. 

'His  general  ideas  (says  Mr  Mackail)  are  nebulous;  he  becomes 
intoxicated  with  his  own  rhetoric  and  dialectic,  and  seems  now  and 
then  talking  (as,  in  fact,  he  often  did)  as  one  in  a  dream,  under  the 
effect  of  some  opiate  which  invested  all  things  in  iridescent  haze' 
(p.  xii). 

Yes,  there  are  turbid  passages  'now  and  then.'  But  the  'general 
ideas'  are  not  'nebulous'  if  we  are  at  the  pains  to  study  them. 
They  are  elusive  and  intricate,  which  is  a  different  thing;  and  they 
issue  from  a  metaphysic  which  we  may  or  may  not  accept,  but  which 
we  must  not  call  'a  quasi-philosophical  system'  unless  we  can  show 
it  is  nothing  better.  Later,  Mr  Mackail  slights  Coleridge  because  '  he 
believed  himself  to  have  found  a  central  point'  in  critical  theory; 


1 24  Reviews 

while  '  no  such  point  exists/  because  '  the  history  of  criticism  is  one 
of  perpetual  progress/  and  '  thus  it  is  that  all  criticism  necessarily  be- 
comes obsolete.'  But  it  does  not  become  so  until  you  have  superseded 
it;  and  you  cannot  supersede  it  simply  by  saying  it  is  'quasi-philo- 
sophical.' In  point  of  fact,  if  we  exclude  Hegel's  mighty  attempt  at  a 
synthesis  in  his  Aesthetik,  and  the  narrower  but  piercing  observations 
of  Schopenhauer,  it  may  be  hard  to  find  a  philosophy  of  poetry  which 
is  newer  and  also  better  than  Coleridge's;  and  in  England  there  has 
assuredly  been  none.  Moreover,  to  rule  out  '  poetic '  as  a  fertile  field  of 
thought,  just  because  it  is  progressive,  is  not  Mr  Mackail's  intention;  it 
is  fertile,  as  he  hints,  because  progressive ;  and  that  the  progress  is  not 
so  rapid  as  to  make  the  study  useless,  may  be  seen  by  remembering 
how  little  time  has  wrecked  some  of  the  famous  definitions  of  Aristotle 
— those,  for  instance,  of  tragedy,  of  the  comic,  and  of  the  rhythm  of 
prose.  It  is,  lastly,  dubious  to  say  of  Coleridge  that  '  in  his  theorizing 
he  is... justifying  impressions  already  made,  habits  of  appreciation 
already  formed '  (p.  vii).  The  truer  account  might  be  that  his  reasoning 
and  sensibility  worked  together  when  he  appreciated,  just  as  they  did 
when  he  created,  poetry ;  and  his  theories  not  only  increased  the  width 
and  precision  of  his  judgments,  but  themselves  shaped  and  enriched 
the  '  musical  and  expressive  language/  which,  as  Gibbon  says  of  Greek, 
'  gave  a  soul  to  the  objects  of  sense,  and  a  body  to  the  abstractions  of 
philosophy.'  I  have  been  thus  particular,  because  Mr  Frowde's  volume 
aims  at  the  cultivated  reader,  and  the  professor's  preface  ought  not  to 
cut  off  in  advance  a  main  source  of  the  reader's  mental  enlargement. 

The  graduation  thesis  of  Miss  Helmholtz  handles,  in  the  dry, 
useful,  business-like  way  of  many  American  treatises,  a  long-vexed 
question.  A.  W.  von  Schlegel  gave  his  Lectures  on  Dramatic  Literature 
in  Vienna  in  1808,  and  published  them  a  few  years  later — before  1812. 
Coleridge  also  lectured  in  1808  at  the  Royal  Institution,  but  only 
scanty  reports  remain.  He  lectured  on  the  drama  in  1812,  and  in  the 
middle  of  his  course  seems  to  have  read  Schlegel  for  the  first  time. 
Next  season,  and  again  in  1818,  he  continued  lecturing  on  the  drama. 
From  the  course  of  1812  onwards  the  likenesses  of  his  thoughts  and 
phrases  with  those  of  Schlegel  become  more  and  more  striking.  Yet 
he  asseverated  all  his  life  that  to  Schlegel  he  owed  nothing,  and  that 
the  likenesses  were  only  coincidence.  Sara,  Coleridge's  daughter,  accepts 
this  view  while  pointing  out  some  of  the  likenesses,  which  have  been 
often  vaguely  referred  to  by  critics.  Miss  Helmholtz  prints  them  at 
length,  and  now  we  can  judge.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Coleridge,  above 
all  when  discussing  Greek  drama,  often  translated  Schlegel  nearly 
verbatim,  and  never  said,  and  probably  never  remembered,  that  he  had 
done  so.  The  passage  (p.  317)  comparing  the  work  of  the  artificial 
poet  to  the  broken  flower-stems  stuck  in  a  child's  garden,  and  the  dis- 
tinction (pp.  322-3)  between  ancient  comedy  and  tragedy,  are  striking 
instances,  and  there  are  many  more  where  it  is  clear  that  Coleridge 
would  have  spoken  otherwise  had  not  Schlegel  been  before  him. 
Mr  Shawcross,  though  Miss  Helmholtz's  thesis  is  not  named  by  him 


Reviews  125 

(and  probably  could  not  have  reached  him  in  time)  is  abreast  of  this 
conclusion  (Vol.  I,  p.  213).  But  we  all  knew  before  that  Coleridge's 
evidence  on  such  a  point  is  suspect,  and  that  he  took  a  highly  impersonal 
view  of  mental  copyright,  like  Guido  dalle  Colonne  and  Spenser  before 
him  and  indeed  the  whole  of  the  middle  ages.  The  real  inference  is 
twofold.  First,  Schlegel's  lectures  were  but  one  affluent  of  that  stream 
of  German  thought  with  which  Coleridge  irrigated  English  thought. 
Schelling,  and  Schiller,  and  Lessing  contributed  likewise,  as  Dr  Herford 
points  out  in  a  pregnant  passage  (pp.  84-7)  of  his  Age  of  Wordsworth, 
and  as  Dr  Alois  Brandl  also  made  clear  in  his  book  on  Coleridge. 
Secondly,  Coleridge  coloured,  and  deepened,  and  ennobled  what  he  took, 
adding  poetry  and  psychology  of  his  own.  The  parallels  with  Schlegel 
often  prove  Coleridge's  supremacy  as  a  critic — the  blunter  thinking  and 
more  formal  rhetoric  of  the  German  becoming  subtilised  and  eloquent, 
and  only  serving  as  a  point  of  departure.  The  descriptions  of  the 
Nurse  in  Romeo  and  Juliet  (Helmholtz,  p.  307)  and  of  the  play  itself 
(p.  320)  are  examples,  and  their  beauty  and  sagacity  make  them  too 
well-known  to  quote  here. 

In  saying  that  Matthew  Arnold  'jauntily  dismissed  Coleridge,'  I  did 
not  forget  an  earlier  tribute,  in  the  essay  on  Joubert,  to  Coleridge's 
'  continual  instinctive  effort,  crowned  often  with  rich  success,  to  get  at 
and  to  lay  bare  the  real  truth  of  his  matter  in  hand.'  But  Arnold  also 
cries  out :  '  How  little  either  of  his  poetry,  or  of  his  criticism,  or  of  his 
philosophy,  can  we  expect  permanently  to  stand ! '  This  was  said  in 
1865 ;  yet  we  see  that  Coleridge's  criticism  has  outworn  forty  years 
since  then,  and  is  still  vital. 

OLIVER  ELTON. 

LIVERPOOL. 

Beitrdge  und  Studien  zur  Englischen  Kultur-  und  Literaturgeschichte. 
Von  J.  SCHIPPER.  Wien  und  Leipzig :  C.  W.  Stern.  1908.  8vo. 
viii  +  371  pp. 

In  this  volume  Professor  Schipper  of  Vienna  has  collected  a  number 
of  papers  of  a  somewhat  popular  kind,  all  of  which  with  one  exception 
had  been  published  before  in  journals  or  newspapers.  The  book  is 
divided  into  two  sections, '  Kulturhistorisches '  and  '  Literarhistorisches.' 

The  first  section  opens  with  an  account  of  the  civilization  of  the 
Anglo-Saxons,  in  which  Professor  Schipper  points  out  certain  features 
which  are  no  less  characteristic  of  the  England  of  to-day.  The  next 
paper  treats  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  and  has  been  brought  up  to  date, 
as  it  twice  mentions,  the  large  bequest  which  has  lately  been  made  to 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  The  bequest  however  is  attributed  to 
Lady  Pearce  instead  of  her  husband  and  the  sum  is  given  as  £400,000. 
It  has  lately  been  stated  that  it  is  of  about  half  that  amount.  Professor 
Schipper  falls  into  error  here  and  there  by  treating  the  two  Universities 
together  and  applying  terms  to  both  such  as  '  Convocation  '  and  '  Con- 
gregation' which  are  not  applicable  at  any  rate  to  Cambridge  in  the 


126  Reviews 

sense  which  he  gives  them.  In  his  general  treatment  he  is  fair-minded 
and  sympathetic.  While  claiming  for  German  Universities  that  they 
do  more  for  the  spiritual  emancipation  of  the  student,  and  for  system- 
atised  research,  he  admits  that  in  the  latter  respect  Oxford  and 
Cambridge  have  made  great  advances  of  late  years  and  are  still  moving 
in  the  right  direction,  He  envies  us  the  help  that  our  Universities 
receive  from  the  private  benefactor.  In  a  note  on  p.  28  which  purports 
to  give  a  list  of  the  Universities  of  England  I  must  point  out  the 
omission  of  Durham,  and,  '  as  in  private  duty  bound,'  Sheffield. 

The  other  papers  in  this  section  are  little  more  than  newspaper 
articles.  They  deal  with  the  Tercentenary  Celebrations  of  Edinburgh 
University  and  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  the  Quatercentenary  of  Aber- 
deen University  and  the  British  Museum  Reading  Room.  Professor 
Schipper  is  wrong  in  stating  (p.  112)  that  the  ceremony  of  conferring 
degrees  is  the  same  in  all  British  Universities.  '  Capping '  is  unknown 
to  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  at  any  rate.  He  has  elevated  Mr  Balfour  to 
the  peerage,  'der  friihere  Mmisterprasident  Lord  Balfour'  (p.  113).  I 
regret  to  say  that  the  British  Museum  Reading  Room  now  closes  at  7 
(practically  at  6.45),  not  at  8  as  Professor  Schipper  informs  his  readers 
(p.  126).  Or  is  Professor  Schipper  specially  favoured  ?  One  might 
think  so  from  his  statement  that  he  gets  his  books  from  5  to  10  minutes 
after  they  are  ordered.  But  his  testimony  to  the  good  management  of 
the  great  institution  to  which  so  many  of  us  owe  so  much  is  pleasant  to 
read  and  will  be  widely  echoed. 

The  second  section  of  the  book  contains  papers  on  The  Freiris  of 
BercAk  (with  a  vigorous  original  translation  of  the  poem  into  German), 
the  wearisome  Shakespeare-Bacon  controversy,  the  Schlegel-Tieck  trans- 
lation of  Shakespeare  as  revised  lately  by  Conrad,  Professor  Raleigh's 
Shakespeare,  Burns,  Charles  Wolfe,  and  '  Lord  Byron  und  die  Frauen.' 

Professor  Schipper  gives  Conrad  the  praise  he  deserves  for  his 
translations  of  passages  of  Shakespeare  which  were  misunderstood  by 
his  predecessors.  One  passage  which  he  selects  for  praise  (Lear  II,  1,  23) 
seems  to  me  however  still  a  mistranslation : 

Have  you  nothing  said 
Upon  his  party  'gainst  the  duke  of  Albany  1 

which  Conrad  turns : 

Habt  ihr  nichts  gesagt 
Von  seiner  Riistung  gegen  Albaniens  Herzog  ? 

But  Shakespeare  means,  not  '  Have  you  nothing  said  about  his  party' 

but  'Have  you  said  nothing  on  his  side,  in  his  interest,  against ' 

Professor  Schipper  naturally  rejects  the  interpretation  of  '  the  mobled 
queen '  which  he  attributes  to  Conrad,  viz.,  '  the  queen  led  by  the  mob.' 
He  does  not  point  out  however  that  the  word  '  mob '  is  not  known  to 
Elizabethan  English. 

Professor  Schipper  has  a  generous  appreciation  of  Professor  Raleigh's 
brilliantly  written  Shakespeare :  '  Wir  kennen  kein  anderes  ahnliches 
Werk,  in  welchem  der  Verfasser  seinem  Gegenstande  mit  einer  solchen 


Reviews  127 

warmen  Sympathie  des  Herzens  und  dennoch  mit  einer  solchen  Selb- 
standigkeit  des  Urteils  und  des  Verstandnisses  gegeniibersteht.  Auch 
wird  es  nicht  leicht  von  einem  anderen  Buch  verwandten  Inhalts  an 
Beichtum  eigener  Gedanken,  an  Klarheit  und  zugleich  an  Originalitat 
des  Ausdruckes  iibertroffen  werden.'  He  holds,  however,  that  it  does 
not  replace  the  works  of  Sidney  Lee  and  Dowden,  and  like  them  shows 
too  little  acquaintance  with  the  results  of  German  investigation. 

No  one  yields  to  myself  in  admiration  of  Sir  John  Moore  or  in 
gratitude  to  Charles  Wolfe  for  the  lyric  which  will  keep  Moore's  name 
a  household  word  to  all  time.  I  think  however  that  Professor  Schipper 
a  little  exaggerates  the  artistic  perfection  of  Wolfe's  moving  lines. 

In  the  concluding  paper  on  Lord  Byron,  Professor  Schipper  maintains 
the  time-worn  position  of  continental  critics  that  Byron  is  '  the  greatest 
English  poet  of  modern  times,'  though,  as  he  says  elsewhere  (p.  102),  it 
is  thought  '  good  tone '  in  England  at  present  to  depreciate  Byron  and 
Moore  in  favour  of  more  didactic  poets  such  as  Wordsworth  and  Brown- 
ing. Is  he  aware  of  Swinburne's  comparison  of  the  poetic  merits  of 
Byron  and  Wordsworth  ?  or  does  he  attribute  that  either  to  a  worship 
of '  good  tone '  or  to  a  love  for  the  didactic  element  in  poetry  ? — or  again 
to  an  hypocritical  morality,  which  is  always  invoked  by  the  continental 
critic,  as  by  Professor  Schipper  himself  (p.  355)  when  he  deals  with 
the  attitude  of  Englishmen  towards  Byron  ?  Surely  when  we  are  so 
constantly  told  by  Germans  that  we  do  not  take  sufficient  notice  of 
German  work,  we  may  expect  German  Professors  of  English  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  best  English  criticism  of  English  poets  and  to  pay 
some  respect  to  it.  It  cannot  surely  be  that  '  the  fine  flower  of  poetry,' 
as  we  know  it  and  feel  it,  is  something  impervious  to  German  spectacles  ? 

With  regard  to  the  exhibition  of  '  hypocritical  morality '  which 
followed  Byron's  parting  from  his  wife — '  die  pharisaische  Tugendheuch- 
elei,  leider  noch  immer  eine  der  verbreitetsten  und  unerfreuchlichsten 
Erscheinungen  in  England' — (is  every  difference  in  moral  standard  to 
be  called  hypocritical  ?)  Professor  Schipper  falls  into  a  curious  error. 
*  In  den  Zeitschrifben,  wie  z.  B.  in  der  Saturday  Review  und  im  Spectator, 
wurde  Byron  aufs  heftigste  angegriffen.'  The  explanation  of  this  strange 
antedating  of  our  two  weeklies  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in  the  following 
sentence  in  Nichols'  Byron  (English  Men  of  Letters  Series),  p.  101 : 
'Cottle,  CatOj  Oxoniensis,  Delia,  and  Styles,  were  let  loose,  and  they 
anticipated  the  Saturday  and  Spectator  of  1869  (i.e.,  of  course,  of  the 
time  of  the  Beecher-Stowe  revelations).'  English  condemnation  of 
much  of  Byron's  life  and  conduct  may  be  due,  not,  I  think,  to  hypocrisy, 
"but  to  a  certain  moral  narrowness;  but  its  dislike  of  his  manner  of 
appealing  to  the  sympathies  of  the  public  against  his  wife  is  due  I  sup- 
pose to  the  English  feeling  of  what  constitutes  a  gentleman,  and  one 
might  wish  that  a  similar  feeling  was  also  observable  in  foreign  critics. 
When  Byron  is  in  question,  it  appears  generally  to  be  absent. 

As  will  have  been  seen,  Professor  Schipper's  book  is  intended  for  the 
•German  reader,  and  does  not  contain  much  that  is  very  valuable  or  fresh 
for  ourselves,  though  one  recognizes  in  most  of  it  a  fairminded  appreci- 


128  Reviews 

ation  of  the  land  in  which  the  author  has  often  been  an  honoured  guest 
and  of  the  literature  to  which  he  has  devoted  his  life.  The  rather 
ordinary  character  of  these  papers  is  not  however  redeemed  by  any 
brilliance  or  distinction  of  style,  and  there  are  a  terrible  number  of 
unconnected  misprints. 

G.  C.  MOORE  SMITH. 
SHEFFIELD. 


Untersuchungen  ilber  die  mittelhochdeutsche  Dichtang  vom  Grafen  Rudolf. 
Von  JOHANNES  BETHMANN.  (Palaestra,  xxx.)  Berlin:  Mayer 
und  Miiller,  1904.  8vo.  viii  +  l70pp. 

Die  Bruchstiicke  des  Grafen  Rudolf  haben  seit  ihrer  Veroffent- 
lichung  durch  W.  Grimm  (1828  und  21844)  mit  gutem'Recht  wiederholt 
die  Aufmerksamkeit  der  Gelehrtenwelt  auf  sich  gelenkt.  Der  historische 
Hintergrund,  auf  den  schon  der  erste  Herausgeber  grossen  Nachdruck 
legte,  nicht  weniger  die  unlaugbaren  Beziehungen  zu  altfranzosischer 
aber  auch  deutscher  Dichtung  forderten  lebhaftes  Interesse  heraus; 
zudem  geniigte  der  erhaltene  Rest  fiir  die  bedeutsame  Erkenntnis,  dass 
es  sich  hier  ebenso  wenig  um  ein  grobkorniges  Spielmannsgedicht 
handle  als  von  dick  aufgetragenem  oder  aufdringlichem  geistlichen 
Firnis  die  Rede  sein  konne :  blickte  aber  aus  dem  Werkchen  ein  Mann 
ritterlichen  Standes  hervor,  so  verdiente  es  ob  seines  Alters  schon  aus 
diesem  Grund  hervorragende  literarische  Beachtung.  Wieder  ein  anderes 
Problem,  dessen  Losung  Grimm  noch  nicht  vollstandig  gelungen  war, 
bildete  eine  durchaus  befriedigende  Anordnung  der  Fragmente,  wieder 
ein  anderes  die  Ermittlung  der  Heimat  des  Dichters. 

Mit  der  Heimatfrage  hebt  Bethmanns  Arbeit  an.  Als  Resultat — 
und  hierin  weicht  er  von  seinen  Yorgangern  (S.  4)  ab — ergibt  sich 
ihm  Lokalisierung  der  Handschrift  in  Thiiringen  zwischen  Werra  und 
Saale  (S.  50),  des  Dichters  hingegen  in  Hessen  innerhalb  oder  doch 
nicht  weit  von  einem  Gebiete,  dessen  Grerizen  S.  37  gezeichnet 
werden.  Sicherheit  scheint  mir  die  eindringliche,  besonders  auf 
moderne  Mundarten  wie  die  Hersfelder,  gestiitzte  Untersuchung 
gleichwohl  nicht  erzielt  zu  haben,  schon  deswegen  nicht,  weil  es 
gewagt  erscheint  bei  der  immerhin  nicht  kleinen  Zahl  uribedingt  un- 
reiner  Reime  andere,  die  es  auch  sein  konnten,  in  den  engen  Bereich 
eines  bestimmten.  natiirlich  des  hessischen  Dialekts  zu  pressen,  und 
weil  dennoch  Bindungen  iibrig  bleiben,  die  zu  jener  Mundart  nicht 
recht  passen  wollen.  Man  vergleiche  die  Ausfiihrungen  Bethmanns  zu 
Reimen  wie  behalt  :  golt  (S.  7f.);  mochte  :  ddchte  und  virsdchte  (S.  12); 
zu  den  fur  die  friihe  Zeit  besonders  auffalligen  Reimen  von  s  :  z  (S.  20) ; 
zu  maht  :  craft,  u.s.w.  (S.  26);  zu  den  -a-Formen  der  Verba  stdn  und  gdn 
(S.  35),  um  die  Gezwungenheit  der  Beurteilung  zu  merken.  In  Hin- 
blick  auf  solche  Bindungen  diirfte  E.  Schroder  zu  der  allerdings  wohl 
auch  nicht  streng  beweisbaren,  aber  ebenso  wenig  von  Bethmann 
widerlegten  Ansicht  gekommen  sein,  der  Verfasser  sei  ein  '  hochdeutsch 
dichtender  Niederdeutscher.'  Tlichtige,  eindringende  Arbeit,  freilich 


Reviews  129 

m.  E.  auf  unzuverlassigerem  Boden  aufgebaut  als  der  Verfasser  meint, 
verrat  auch  das  anschliessende,  ausfiihrliche  Kapitel  liber  die  Metrik, 
mit  den  besonders  dankenswerten  Abschnitten  liber  die  Hebungen, 
starker  gefiillte  und  fehlende  Senkungen;  auffallig  ist  aber  das  Zu- 
rlickschrecken  vor  der  Annahme  gelegentlicher  dreihebig  stumpfer  und 
vierhebig  klingender  Verse  in  der  Bindung  mit  dreihebig  klingenden, 
vgl.  S.  61  unter  b,  S.  72  f.  Die  liblichen  Gewaltkuren  verschaffen 
dem  Emendator  grossere  Befriedigung  als  sie  den  Schaden — wenn  es 
wirklich  ein  solcher  ist — sicher  heilen.  Die  librigen  Kapitel  sind  den 
Quellen  der  Dichtung — literarischen  und  historischen — dem  Stil  und 
der  Personlichkeit  des  deutschen  Dichters  gewidmet.  Mit  Holz  (Paul 
und  Braune's  Beitrdge,  xviii,  S.  565  f.)  ordnet  Bethmann  die  Bruch- 
stlicke  in  der  Folge  j3  a  B  8  C  D  7  A  E — K,  doch  versucht  er  tiber  ihn 
hinaus  und  gegen  Grimm  eine  einleuchtende  Erganzung  des  zweiten  und 
dritten  Verses  von  7  (mohtes  tu  daz  ircr[igen  und]  sine  hdgezit  beliben, 
S.  79  und  Anmerkung,  1,  S.  80)  und  identifiziert,  gewiss  mit  Recht,  den 
Herrn  von  Flandern  in  A  mit  dem  Grafen  Rudolf.  Die  Gleichstellung 
Apollinarts  mit  des  Heiden  Sohn  (S.  82  doch  auch  S.  84)  moge  dagegen 
auf  sich  beruhen.  Sein  Urteil  liber  das  Verhaltnis  des  deutschen 
Gedichtes  zum  Beuve  de  Hanstone  fasst  Bethmann  S.  101  dahin 
zusammen,  dass  die  im  Graf  en  Rudolf  vorliegende  Fassung  der  Sage 
im  wesentlichen  Eigentum  des  deutschen  Dichters  sei,  der  den  Stoff, 
welchen  er  aus  Erzahlungen  und  Lektiire  kennen  gelernt  habe,  aus  dem 
Gedachtnis  verwandte  und  der  Erzahhmg  als  Hintergrund  die  Ereig- 
nisse  der  Kreuzziige  gab.  Gesteht  also  Bethmann  hier  grb'sstmogliche 
Freiheit  einer  franzosischen  Vorlage  gegenliber  zu,  so  will  er  anderseits 
die  von  Sybel  (Zeitschrift  fur  deut.  Altert.,  n,  S.  235)  als  historischen 
Hintergrund  gekennzeichnete  Geschichte  des  Grafen  Hugo  von  Puiset 
nicht  als  solchen  gelten  lassen,  weil  die  Ubereinstimmungen  nicht  weit 
genug  giengen;  der  Dichter  habe  liberhaupt  nicht  eine  bestimmte 
Personlichkeit  vor  Augen  gehabt,  vielmehr  einzelne  wirklichen  Kreuz- 
fahrern  entlehnte  Ztige  auf  seinen  Heiden  libertragen  und  unter  diesen 
kame  besonders  Graf  Dietrich  von  Flandern  in  Betracht.  Allein  was 
Bethmann  dafiir  (S.  108-11)  beibringt,  scheint  mir  wenig  gliicklich. 
Flir  mein  Geflihl  bleibt  es  das  wahrscheinlichste,  dass  der  deutsche 
Dichter  einer  in  Nordfrankreich  oder  in  Flandern  selbst  entstandenen 
franzosischen  Quelle  in  allem  wesentlichen  folgte,  einer  Vorlage,  die 
Ziige  aus  dem  Leben  Hugos  von  Puiset  mit  sagenhaften,  wie  sie  zum 
Teil  im  Beuve  de  Hanstone  auftreten,  kombiniert  hatte.  War  der 
franzosische  Dichter  in  Flandern  zuhause,  so  konnte  schon  er  den 
Kaiser  hereingebracht  haben;  dass  er  seinen  Heiden  aus  Arras  stain- 
men  lasst,  ist  doch  kein  Ausschlag  gebender  Gegengrund  wie  Bethmann 
S.  101  f.  meint.  Ausgefiihrt  mag  der  Deutsche  diese  Beziehung  auf 
das  kaiserliche  Hofceremoniell  immerhin  haben,  und  das  um  so  wahr- 
scheinlicher  wenn  Bethmanns  Vermutung  liber  seine  Beziehungen  zu 
den  thliringischen  Landgrafen  das  Richtige  trifft.  Indem  Bethmann 
schliesslich  den  Beziehungen  des  Grafen  Rudolf  zu  anderen  deutschen 
Dichtungen  nachgeht,  gelangt  er  zu  der  chronologischen  Reihe: 


M.   L.  R.   IV. 


130  Reviews 

Vorauer  Alexander,  Eilharts  Tristrant,  Strassburger  Alexander,  Graf 
Rudolf.  Fur  die  Prioritat  des  Tristrant  kann  er  jedoch  nur  Erwa- 
gungen,  die  in  der  Technik  begriindet  sind,  ins  Feld  fiihren,  und  das 
bleibt  immer  eine  missliche  Sache,  wo  man,  wie  hier,  von  der  natiir- 
lichen  Begabung,  poetischen  Schulung  und  literarischen  Beeinflussung 
der  betreffenden  Dichter  so  wenig  sicheres  weiss.  Jedesfalls  sind  die 
auf  das  umgekehrte  Verhaltnis  deutenden  Ausfiihrungen  E.  Schrdders 
(Zeitschrift  fur  deut.  Altert.,  XLII,  S.  78  f.,  196)  auf  festerera  Boden 
aufgebaut. 

R.  PRIEBSCH. 
LONDON. 


MINOR  NOTICES. 

The  attractive  'Tudor  and  Stuart  Library'  published  by  the  Oxford 
University  Press  already  contains  a  number  of  useful  texts,  and  gains 
not  a  little  by  the  inclusion  of  this  handy  edition  of  Shakespeare's 
Sonnets  and  A  Lover's  Complaint  (with  an  Introduction  by  W.  H. 
Hadow.  Oxford :  Clarendon  Press,  1907).  It  stands  the  test  of 
collation  with  the  original  in  a  thoroughly  satisfactory  manner,  all 
departures  therefrom  being  recorded  in  the  notes.  The  plan  has  been 
to  make  no  alteration  except  in  cases  of  absolute  necessity,  and  this 
rule  appears  to  have  been  scrupulously  observed.  It  may,  however,  be 
questioned  whether,  in  spite  of  the  undoubted  fact  that  the  original  '  is 
not  a  particularly  good  specimen  of  the  printing  of  the  period,'  it  would 
not  have  been  worth  while  making  the  text  a  facsimile  reprint.  Such 
an  edition  would  probably  have  been  welcome  to  many  students  who 
cannot  afford  the  photographic  facsimile  published  some  years  ago. 
However,  little  harm  has  been  done  by  the  changes,  which  certainly 
result  in  greater  typographical  amenity.  The  introduction  contains  a 
moderate  advocacy  of  the  dramatic-autobiographic  view  and  the  Pem- 
broke-Fitton  theory.  It  is  pleasantly  written  but  makes  no  claim  to 
originality.  In  enumerating  the  instances  of  the  sonnet  form  being 
used  in  the  plays,  the  meeting  of  Romeo  and  Juliet  (i,  v,  95  &c.)  might 
have  been  added.  On  p.  xvi  we  find  '  solve '  in  the  last  line  of  Son. 
LXIX,  while  the  text  reads  '  soyle '  (rightly).  A  note  on  the  reading  of 
the  quarto  ('  solye ')  says :  '  The  usual  reading  is  solve ;  but  soyle. .  .is 
the  simpler  change.'  Here  '  solve '  was  introduced  by  Mai  one ;  but 
'  soyle,'  the  reading  of  the  Poems  of  1640  adopted  by  Capell,  is  surely 
now  universally  accepted. 

W.  W.  G. 

An  edition  of  the  works  of  Gascoigne  (The  Complete  Works  of  George 
Gascoigne.  Vol.  I.  The  Posies.  Edited  by  John  W.  Cunliffe.  Cam- 
bridge: University  Press,  1907)  is  a  very  welcome  item  in  the  series 


Minor  Notices  131 

of  '  Cambridge  English  Classics.'  In  this  volume  Professor  Cunliffe 
reprints  The  Posies  from  the  second  quarto  of  1575.  He  gives  no  Intro- 
duction but  describes  the  early  editions  of  The  Posies  in  an  Appendix 
and  goes  on  to  give  a  careful  collation  of  the  text  he  has  chosen  with 
the  texts  of  Quarto  1  (1573)  and  Quarto  3  (1587)  and  in  the  case  of 
Jocasta  with  a  MS.  now  in  the  British  Museum,  formerly  the  property 
of  Roger,  second  Baron  North.  He  adds  some  poems  which  appeared 
in  Quarto  1  but  were  omitted  from  the  later  quartos.  Professor 
Cunliffe's  work  appears  to  be  very  careful  and  his  edition  ought  to  do 
much  for  the  reputation  of  a  poet  who  has  not  hitherto  attained  his 
deserts.  In  his  '  verse-letters '  and  in  a  few  lyrics  such  as  The  Lullabie 
Gascoigne  is  surely  an  excellent  writer. 

G.  C.  M.  S. 

The  comparative  method  in  literary  criticism  has  its  dangers  as  well 
as  its  fascinations;  it  has  led  M.  Guillaume  Huszar  (Etudes  critiques 
de  la  litterature  comparee.  II.  Moliere  et  I'Espagne.  Paris :  H. 
Champion,  1907)  into  an  enchanted  land  where  fancy  riots  and  com- 
mon-sense is  unknown.  He  sets  out  with  two  theses,  which  he  proves 
to  his  complete  satisfaction ;  one  that  Moliere  has  been  greatly  over- 
rated, and  the  other  that  his  debt  to  Spain  is  very  considerable.  M. 
Huszar,  who  is  very  contemptuous  towards  critics  who  are  ignorant  of 
the  Spanish  drama,  sees  Spain  everywhere.  Arnolphe  and  Chrysalde 
are  Spaniards  ;  so  is  Alceste.  Mascarille  in  L'JZtourdi,  and  Sganarelle 
in  Don  Juan,  are  graciosos.  In  Don  Juan  the  unities  are  neglected, 
therefore  it  is  Spanish.  In  the  Depit  Aftioureux  Moliere  deals  with 
the  psychology  of  love,  therefore  it  is  Spanish.  The  precieuses  are 
Spanish.  '  Tartuffe  comes  also  from  Spain.'  In  short,  there  is  not  a 
single  play  of  Moliere's  which  does  not  owe  something  to  Spain.  For 
the  purposes  of  M.  Huszar's  argument  it  is  all  the  same  whether 
Moliere  borrows  directly  from  a  Spanish  play,  or  indirectly  through 
Scarron  or  the  Italian  Comedy.  It  is  a  pity  that  M.  Huszar  has  not 
added  to  his  wide  reading  of  the  Spanish  drama  some  knowledge  of 
Italian  comedy  and  of  the  social  conditions  of  Moliere's  day.  He 
would  then  have  hardly  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Moliere  saw 
nature  through  books,  nor  would  he  have  failed  to  perceive  the  great 
gap  which  separates  the  creator  of  modern  social  comedy  from  Scarron 
and  Desmarests  and  even  from  Corneille.  M.  Huszar's  conclusion  is 
that  much  of  Moliere's  work  is  obsolete,  and  that  his  characters  are  all 
of  a  piece,  exaggerated,  and  therefore  improbable.  These  are  harmless 
•opinions,  and  will  hurt  nobody,  least  of  all  Moliere. 

A.  T. 

Dr  James  Williams  has  in  his  Dante  as  a  Jurist  (Oxford :  Blackwell, 
1906)  collected  all  the  juridical  references  in  Dante's  works.  The  first 
29  pp.  are  occupied  (after  a  short  but  learned  Introduction)  with  the 
Divina  Commedia,  where  the  matter  is  classified  as  follows :  (1)  Bologna, 
(2)  Lawyers,  (3)  Legal  terms,  (4)  Legal  arguments,  (5)  Penology.  Then 

9 2 


132  Minor  Notices 

follows  a  section  on  the  Prose  Works,  most  space  being  given  to 
the  De  Monarchia  which,  as  the  writer  says,  is  '  permeated  with  law.' 
There  is  an  interesting  appendix  on  Duo  Gladii,  a  short  bibliography 
and  a  classified  Index.  The  little  book  breaks  new  ground,  and  does  it 
effectively.  Such  a  subject  leaves  no  room  for  eloquence,  nor  does  it 
give  much  scope  for  style.  To  the  lay  mind  it  must  necessarily 
appear  somewhat  dry;  occasionally  also  a  little  far-fetched,  as,  e.g., 
when  it  is  suggested  that  Bologna  is  called  in  the  second  Eclogue 
antrum  Cyclopis  'possibly  because  a  zealous  advocate  is  apt  to  approach 
his  case  with  one  eye  shut '  (!). 

L.  R. 

Translation  from  English  in  its  earlier  stages  is  a  task  which  is 
seldom  satisfactorily  accomplished.  Old  English  alliterative  poetry  is 
perhaps  the  most  difficult  of  all,  but  it  is  close  run  by  the  poetry  of  the 
North-west-midland  school.  It  is  a  real  pleasure  to  find  in  Dr  Charles 
G.  Osgood's  prose  rendering  of  the  most  beautiful  of  all  Middle  English 
poems,  The  Pearl  (Princeton,  N.Y. :  published  by  the  translator,  1907), 
a  translation  which  can  be  read  with  pleasure  for  its  own  sake,  while 
sacrificing  none  of  the  intimate  charm  of  the  original.  Dr  Osgood  has 
successfully  avoided  the  various  pitfalls  which  await  the  translator  from 
Old  and  Middle  English.  There  is  none  of  that  straining  after  archaism 
which  even  to  the  initiated  often  makes  renderings  from  the  earlier 
Teutonic  tongues  more  difficult  than  the  original  poems  themselves. 
Neither  is  there  any  jarring  modern  note,  when  a  single  word  often 
spoils  the  effect  of  a  whole  paragraph  or  stanza.  The  translation  is 
never  more  archaic  than  the  language  of  the  Authorised  Version  and 
never  so  modern  as  to  cause  us  to  forget  that  the  whole  setting  and 
trend  of  thought  in  the  poem  belong  to  an  age  that  is  past.  Only  the 
scholar  can  appreciate  the  labour  of  love  that  must  have  gone  to  the 
making  of  such  a  translation,  but  we  may  hope  that  through  it  the 
larger  world  may  learn  to  know  and  love  more  than  they  have  yet  had 
any  chance  of  doing  this  '  pearl '  of  poetry.  Perhaps  it  may  be  added 
that  the  format  of  the  book  is  well  worthy  of  its  choice  contents. 

A.  M. 

The  Gyldendalske  Boghandel  in  Copenhagen,  which  in  the  past 
years  has  earned  the  gratitude  of  all  students  of  modern  and  especially 
recent  Danish  literature  by  its  admirable  Bibliothek  for  Hjemmet,  has 
just  issued  the  first  volume  of  a  new  series,  Mindesmcerker  af  Danmarks 
Nationallitteratur,  udgivne  af  Vilhelm  Andersen,  the  volume  being 
devoted  to  selections  from  the  writings  of  Sb'ren  Kierkegaard  under 
the  editorship  of  Carl  Koch.  It  is  proposed  to  include  in  the  series 
annotated  editions  of  Holberg,  Oehlenschlager  and  other  Danish  classics, 
besides  mediaeval  texts. 


NEW  PUBLICATIONS. 


June — August,   1908. 

GENERAL. 

Bibliographic  der  deutscheri  Zeitschriften-Literatur  mit  Einschluss  von  Sammel- 
werken  und  Zeitungsbeilagen.  Bd.  xxn  A.  Erganzungsband  I.  Nachtrage 
aus  den  Jahren  1896-98  mit  Autoren-Register.  Leipzig-Gautzsch,  F.  Die- 
trich. 25  M. 

Untersuchungen  und  Quellen  zur  germanischen  und  romanischen  Philologie. 
Johann  von  Kelle  dargebracht  von  seinen  Kollegen  und  Schiilern.  i.  Teil. 
(Prager  deutsche  Studien,  viu.)  Prague,  C.  Bellmann.  14  Kr. 

ROMANCE   LANGUAGES. 

Romanische  Forschungen.  Organ  fiir  romanische  Sprachen  und  Mittellatein. 
Herausg.  von  K.  Vollmb'ller.  Vol.  xxn,  3.  Erlangen,  Junge.  12  M.  65. 

ZACCARIA,  E.,  Bibliografia  italo-iberica,  ossia  edizioni  e  versioni  di  opere 
spagnuole  e  portoghesi  fattesi  in  Italia.  Parte  I  (Edizioni).  2da  ediz.  con 
nuove  aggiunte.  Carpi,  Ravagli.  3  L.  50. 


Italian. 


ANCONA,  D.,  Dio  nell'  opera  di  G.  Carducci.     Conferenza.     Bari,  Casa  editr. 
Alighieri.     1  L. 

CASTETS,  F.,  I  Dodici  canti.     Epopee  romanesque  du  xvie  siecle.     (Publ.  de  la 
Societe  des  langues  romanes,  xxn.)     Montpellier,  Coulet  et  fils.     8  fr. 

CHIURLO,   B.,  Un  poeta  dialettale  friulano   imitatore  del   Be"ranger.     Udine, 
Gambierasi.     1  L. 

CIPOLLINI,  F.,  Appunti  di  storia  e  critica  del  melodramma.     Padua,  Drucker. 
1  L.  50. 

COLAGROSSO,  F.,  Un'  usanza  letteraria  in  gran  voga  nel  Settecento  (le  Raccolte). 
(Biblioteca  nazionale.)     Florence,  Le  Monnier.     2  L. 

DANTE  ALIGHIERI,  La  Vita  Nuova  e  il   Canzoniere  (Edizione  Vademecum). 
Florence,  Barbera.     3  L. 

DE  GUBERNATIS,  A.,  Torquato  Tasso.     Corso  di  lezioni  fatte  nella  r.  universita 
di  Roma  (1907-8).     Rome,  Tip.  Popolare.     10  L. 

FARINELLI,  A.,  Dante  e  la  Francia  dall'  etk  media  al  secolo  di  Voltaire.     2  vols. 
(Biblioteca  letteraria.)     Milan,  Hoepli.     15  L. 

GARRONE,  M.  A.,  Vademecum  dello  studioso  della  Divina  Commedia.     Turin, 
Para  via.     2  L.  50. 


134  New  Publications 

GOURMONT,  R.  DE,  Dante,  Beatrice  et  la  poesie  amoureuse.  Paris,  Mercure  de 
France.  75  c. 

GUERRI,  D.,  Di  alcuni  versi  dotti  della  Divina  Commedia.  Ricerche  sul  sapere 
grammaticale  di  Dante  (Collezione  di  opuscoli  danteschi).  Cittk  di  Castello, 
S.  Lapi.  2  L.  25. 

Lo  PARCO,  F.,  Studi  manzoniani  di  critica,  lingua  e  stile.  Messina,  V.  Muglia. 
3  L.  50. 

MANZONI,  A.,  Opere  complete.  Vol.  i.  I  promessi  sposi,  illustrati  da  G.  Previati, 
preceduti  da  uno  studio  su  Gli  anni  di  noviziato  poetico  del  Manzoni  di 
M.  Scherillo.  2da  ediz.  (Biblioteca  letteraria.)  5  L. 

MUONI,  G.,  Poesia  notturna  preromantica,  la  mente  e  la  fama  di  G.  Cardano, 
appunti.  Milan,  Soc.  Editr.  Libraria.  1  L.  50. 

MURATORI,  L.  A.,  Epistolario,  edito  e  curato  da  M.  Campori.  xi  (1745-48). 
Modena,  Soc.  Tip.  Modenese.  12  L. 

PARINI,  G.,  Versi  e  prose,  con  un  discorso  di  G.  Giusti  intorno  alia  vita  e  alle 
opere  di  lui.  (Biblioteca  economica.)  Florence,  Le  Monnier.  1  L.  75. 

PETRARCA,  F.,  Rime,  con  1'  interpretazione  di  G.  Leopardi,  migliorata  in  vari 
luoghi  la  lezione  del  testo  e  aggiuutevi  nuove  osservazioni.  (Biblioteca 
economica.)  Florence,  Le  Monnier.  1  L.  75. 

PIERRE-GADTHIEZ,  Dante,  essais  sur  sa  vie.     Paris,  H.  Laurens.     9  fr. 
PIRANESI,  G.,  Giostre  e  tornei  in  Dante.     Rome,  Collegio  Araldico.     2  L. 

Rimatori  bolognesi  del  Quattrocento,  a  cura  di  L.  Frati.  (N.  Malpighi.  G.  B. 
Refrigerio.  G.  Roverbella.  C.  Nappi.  G.  A.  Garisendi.  Bornio  da  Sala. 
A.  M.  Salimbeni.  S.  Aldrovandi.)  Bologna,  Romagnoli  dall'  Acqua.  12  L. 

ROHRSHEIM,  L.,  Die  Sprache  des  Fra  Guittone  von  Arezzo  (Lautlehre).  (Zeit- 
schrift  fur  romanische  Philologie.  Beiheft  15.)  Halle,  Niemeyer.  2  M.  80. 

Rossi,  G.,  Saggio  di  una  bibliografia  ragionata  delle  opere  di  Alessandro 
Tassoni,  con  un  discorso  sugli  scritti  editi  ed  inediti  di  lui.  Fasc.  I. 
Bologna,  Zanichelli.  6  L. 

SECCHIA,  La,  contiene  sonetti  burleschi  inediti  del  Tassone  e  molte  invenzioni 
piacevoli  e  cnriose  vagamente  illustrate,  edite  per  la  famosa  festa  Mutino- 
Bononiense  del  31  maggio  MCMVIII,  prefazione  di  O.  Guerrini.  Bologna, 
L.  Beltrami.  2  L.  50. 

SINOWITZ,  M.,  Kommentar  zu  Dante  Alighieris  Gottliche  Komodie.  Zurich, 
Clecner.  5  fr. 

STRAPAROLA  DI  CARAVAGQIO,  G.  F.,  Die  ergotzlichen  Nachte.  Aus  dem  Ital. 
ubersetzt  und  eingeleitet  von  H.  Floerke.  2  vols.  (Perlen  alterer  romani- 
scher  Prosa,  vm,  ix.)  Munich,  G.  Miiller.  28  M. 

TRABALZA,  C.,  Storia  della  grammatica  italiana.     Milan,  Hoepli.     9  L. 

VOSSLER,  K.,  Salvatore  Di  Giacomo,  ein  neapolitanischer  Volksdichter  in  Wort, 
Bild  und  Musik.  Heidelberg,  Winter.  4  M. 

Spanish. 

CASTRO,  GUILLEN  DE,  El  curioso  impertinente,  comedia,  publfcala  nuevamente 
F.  Martfnez  y  Martinez.  Valencia,  M.  Pau. 

Celestina,  or,  The  Tragi-Comedy  of  Calisto  and  Melibea.  Transl.  from  the 
Spanish  by  James  Mabbe,  anno  1631.  (Library  of  Early  Novelists.) 
London,  Routledge.  6s.  net. 

SANZ  DEL  CASTILLO,  A.,  La  mogiganga  del  gusto  en  seis  novelas,  publicadas  con 
una  introduccitfn  por  D.  Emilio  Cotarelo  y  Mori.  (Coleccidn  selecta  de 
antiguas  novelas  espanolas,  vm.)  Madrid,  Imprenta  Iberica.  3  pes. 


New  Publications  135 

Provencal. 

BECK,  J.  B.,  Die  Melodien  der  Troubadours.  Nach  dem  gesamten  handschrift- 
lichen  Material  zum  erstenmal  bearbeitet  und  herausgegeben  Strassbure 
Triibner.  30  M. 

French. 

(a)     General  (Language). 

HORLTJC,  P.,  et  G.  MARINET,  Bibliographic  de  la  Syntaxe  du  Frar^ais  (1840- 
1905).  (Annales  de  1'Universite  de  Lyon,  n,  20.)  Lyons,  A.  Key.  6  fr. 

(6)     Old  French. 

B^DIER,  J.,  Les  le"gendes  epiques,  recherches  sur  la  formation  des  chansons  de 
geste.  Tome  II.  Paris,  H.  Champion.  8  fr. 

CHAMPION,  P.,  Charles  d'Orleans,  joueur  d'echecs.     Paris,  H.  Champion.     3  fr. 

JACOBIUS,  H.,  Die  Erziehung  des  Edelfrauleins  im  alten  Frankreich  nach 
Dichtungen  des  xn.,  xm.  und  xiv.  Jahrhunderts.  (Zeitschrift  fiir  romani- 
sche  Philologie,  16.  Beiheft.)  Halle,  Niemeyer.  2  M. 

(c)     Modern  French. 

ALLART  DE  MERITENS,  H.,  Lettres  inedites  a  Sainte-Beuve.  Paris,  Mercure  de 
France.  1  fr.  50. 

AMIEL,  H.  P.,  Fragments  d'un  Journal  intime.     Paris,  Fischbacher.     5  fr. 

BARBEY  D'AUREVILLY,  J.,  L'esprit  de  Barbey  d'Aurevilly,  dictionnaire  de  pensees, 
traits,  portraits  et  jugements,  tires  de  son  ceuvre  critique.  Paris,  Mercure 
de  France.  3  fr.  50. 

BARBEY  D'AUREVILLY,  J.,  Le  theatre  contemporain.   Paris,  P.  V.  Stock.    3  fr.  50. 

BRUNER,  J.  D.,  Studies  in  Victor  Hugo's  Dramatic  Characters.  Boston,  Ginn 
and  Co.  1  dol. 

COMPAYRE,  G.,  Montaigne  and  Education  of  the  Judgment.  (Pioneers  of 
Education.)  London,  Harrap.  2s.  Qd.  net. 

CYRANO  DE  BERGERAC,  Les  plus  belles  pages.  Paris,  Mercure  de  France. 
3  fr.  50. 

DOUMIC,  R.,  Le  theatre  nouveau  (Hervieu — Lavedan — Lemaltre — Rostand — 
Capus  etc.).  Paris,  Perrin.  3  fr.  50. 

FRIEDRICH'S  DES  GROSSEN  Briefwechsel  mit  Voltaire.  Herausg.  von  R.  Koser 
und  H.  Droysen.  I.  Teil.  1736-40.  (Publikationen  aus  den  kgl.  preuss. 
Staatsarchiven,  LXXXI.)  Leipzig,  S.  Hirzel.  12  M. 

GAUTHIER-FERRIERES,  Fra^ois  Coppe"e  et  son  oeuvre.  Paris,  Mercure  de 
France.  75  c. 

HOVINGH,  M.,  et  BITTER,  J.,  Autour  de  Cyrano  de  Bergerac.  Sa  vie  et  ses 
ceuvres.  Notes  explicatives  sur  le  Cyrano  de  Rostand.  Zwolle,  Tjeenk 
Willink.  85  c. 

MOLIERE,  Works.  Translated  into  English  by  C.  H.  Page.  2  vols.  (French 
Classics  for  English  Readers.)  New  Vork,  Putnam.  4  dol.  net. 

MONTAIGNE,  M.  DE,  Gesammelte  Schriften.  Historisch-kritische  Ausgabe. 
Herausg.  von  0.  Flake  und  W.  Weigand.  I.  Band.  Essays,  I.  Buch, 
1.— 26.  Kap.  Munich,  G.  Miiller.  5  M. 

MUSSET,  A.  DE,  Comedies  et  proverbes.  Tome  iv  et  dernier.  Paris,  Calmann- 
Levy.  1  fr. 


136  New  Publications 

MUSKET,  A.  DE,  CEuvres  completes.     Tome  vm.      Melanges  de  litteVature. 
Paris,  Gamier  freres.     3  fr. 

NEVE,  P.,  La  philosophic  de  Taine.     Paris,  V.  Lecoffre.     4  fr. 

QUINET,  E.,  France  et  Allemagne.     Edited  by  C.  Cestre.     (Oxford  Higher 
French  Series.)    London,  H.  Frowde.     3s.  6d.  net. 

S£CH£,  L.,  Muses  romantiques.     Hortense  Allart  de  Me*ritens.     Paris,  Mercure 
de  France.     3  fr.  50. 

TAINE,  H.,  Life  and  Letters.     Abridged  and  translated  by  E.  Sparvel- Bayly. 
London,  Constable.     7*.  6d.  net. 

Trente  Noels  Poitevins  dn  xve  au  xvme  siecle.     Public's  par  Henri  Lemattre  et 
Henri  Clouzot.     Airs  notes  par  Ayme  Kunc.     Niort,  Clouzot.     5  fr. 

ZWEIG,  S.,  Balzac,  sein  Weltbild  aus  den  Werken  (Aus  der  Gedankenwelt  grosser 
Geister,  xi).     Stuttgart,  Lutz.     2  M.  50. 


GERMANIC  LANGUAGES. 
Gothic. 

Gotische  Bibel,  Die.  Herausg.  von  W.  Streitberg.  n.  Der  gotische  Text  und 
seine  griechische  Vorlage.  Mit  Einleitung,  Lesarten  und  Quelleunach- 
weisen,  sowie  den  kleinern  Denkmalern  als  Anhang  (Germanische  Biblio- 
thek,  II.  Abt.,  in,  i).  Heidelberg,  C.  Winter.  4  M.  70. 

SCHULZE,  W.,  Wortbrechung  in  den  gotischen  Handschriften.  (Aus '  Sitzungsber. 
d.  preuss.  Akad.  d.  Wiss.')  Berlin,  Reimer.  50  pf. 

Scandinavian. 

Altnordische  Texte.  Herausg.  von  E.  Mogk.  1.  Gunnlaugs  saga  Ormstungu, 
herausg.  von  E.  Mogk.  2.  Aufl.  Halle,  Niemeyer.  1  M.  60. 

ASBJORNSEN,  P.  and  J.  MOE,  Norwegische  Volksmarchen.  Eingeleitet  von 
H.  Bang  und  L.  Tieck.  Berlin,  Bondy.  3  M. 

CEDERSCHJOLD,  G.,  Studier  b'fver  verbalabstrakterna  i  nutida  svenska.  (Gote- 
borgs  hogskolas  Aarsskrift,  in.)  Goteborg,  Wettergren  och  Kerber.  2  Kr.  25. 

0 

FLOM,  G.  T.,  A  History  of  Scandinavian  Studies  in  American  Universities, 
together  with  a  Bibliography  (Iowa  Studies  iu  Language  and  Literature). 
Iowa  City,  State  University.  50  c. 

HARRIS,  G.  W.,  Islandica.  An  Annual  relating  to  Iceland  and  the  Fiske 
Icelandic  Collection  in  Cornell  University  Library.  Vol.  I.  Bibliography 
of  the  Icelandic  Sagas  and  Minor  Tales  by  H.  Hermannsson.  Ithaca, 
Cornell  University.  1  dol. 

IBSEN,  H.,  Brand,  et  dramatisk  digt.  Edited  with  Introduction  and  Notes  by 
J.  E.  Olson.  Chicago,  J.  Anderson.  1  dol.  50. 

KNUDSEN,  D.  F.,  Utvalg  af  norsk  litteratur.  Henrik  Arnold  Wergeland. 
Christiania,  J.  W.  Cappelen.  2  Kr. 

LA  CotJR,  L.  F.,  Zacharias  Topelius  og  Frederik  Barfod.  En  Brevveksling 
meddelt  og  med  Indledning  og  Noter  forsynet.  Copenhagen,  Gyldendal. 
2Kr. 

LEVERTIN,  0.,  Samlade  skrifter.  Svensk  litteratur.  Stockholm,  Bonnier. 
3  Kr.  50. 

NECREL,  G.,  Beitrage  zur  Eddaforschung.  Mit  Exkursen  zur  Heldensage. 
Dortmund,  Ruhfus.  16  M. 


New  Publications  137 

RANISCH,  W.,  Die  Volsungasaga.  Nach  Bugges  Text  mit  Einleitung  und 
Glossar  herausg.  2.  unveranderte  Aufl.  Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller. 
3  M.  60. 

Samlingar  iitg.  af  Svenska  fornskrifbsallskapet.  133.  Svenska  boner  fran 
medeltiden.  Utg.  af  R.  Geete.  Hsefte  2.  134.  Arfstvisten  emellan  Erik 
Eriksson  (Gyllenstjerna)  och  Tare  Turesson  (Bjelke)  1451-1480.  Utg.  af 
K.  H.  Karlsson.  Stockholm.  3  Kr.  50  and  2  Kr.  25. 

Skotlands  Rimur.  Icelandic  Ballads  on  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy.  Edited  by 
W.  A.  Craigie.  Oxford,  Clarendon  Press.  3s.  6d.  net. 

STRINDBERG,  A.,  Werke.  Deutsche  Gesamtausgabe.  i.  Abteilung :  Dramen. 
II.  Abteilung :  Romane.  3.  Bd.  Am  offenen  Meer.  2.  Aufl.  Munich, 
G.  Muller.  Each  vol.  4  M. 

VULLUM,  E.,  H.  Wergeland  i  Digt  og  Liv.  En  historisk  Skitse.  Christiania, 
O.  Norli.  50  o. 

Dutch. 

Bibliotheek  van  middelnederlandsche  letterkunde.  Ferguut,  van  Eelco  Verwijs, 
opnieuw  bewerkt  en  uitgeg.  door  J.  Verdam.  Leyden,  A.  W.  Sijthoft'. 
5  fl.  25. 

ELRINQ,  G.  VAN,  Willem  Bilderclijk.  Een  dicbterstudie.  The  Hague,  M.  Nijhoff. 
2  fl.  40. 

VERWEY,  A.,  Droom  en  Lucht.  Rede  ter  viering  van  Potgieter's  eerste  eeuwfeest, 
voor  de  literarische  faculteit  der  Leidsche  studentenvereeniging  uitgesproken. 
Amsterdam,  Maas  en  van  Suchtelen.  50  c. 

English. 

(a)     General  (Language). 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  Edited  by  L.  Stephen  and  S.  Lee.  Reissue. 
Vol.  iv  (Chamber — Craigie),  Vol.  v  (Craik — Drake),  Vol.  vi  (Drant — Finan). 
London,  Smith,  Elder.  Each  21s.  net. 

LOGEMAN,  H.,  Tenuis  en  Media.  Over  de  Stemverhouding  bij  Konsonanten  in 
moderne  talen  met  een  Aanhangsel  over  de  fonetiese  verklaring  der  Wetten 
van  Verner  en  Grimm.  (Recueil  de  Travaux  publics  par  1'Universite  de 
Gand.)  Ghent,  E.  van  Goethem.  5  fr. 

Neudrucke  friihneuenglischer  Grammatiken.  Herausg.  von  R.  Brotanek.  in. 
S.  Daines,  Orthoepia  anglicana  (1640).  Herausg.  von  M.  Rosier  und 
R.  Brotanek.  Halle,  Niemeyer.  7  M. 

(6)     Old  and  Middle  English. 

CHAUCER,  G.,  Les  Contes  de  Canterbury  (suite  et  fin).     (Revue  Germanique, 

iv,  4  bis.)     Paris,  F.  Alcan.     4  fr. 
JANSEN,  K.,  Die  Cynewulf-Forschung  von  ihren  Anfangeri  bis  zur  Gegenwart 

(Bonner  Beitrage  zur  Anglistik,  xxiv).     Bonn,  P.  Hanstein.     4  M. 
SCHLOTTEROSE,  0.,  Die  altenglische  Dichtung  '  Phoenix,'  herausg.  und  erlautert 

(Bonner  Beitrage  zur  Anglistik,  xxv).     Bonn,  P.  Hanstein.     5  M. 
WARTH,  J.  VON  DER,  Metrisch-sprachliches  und  Textkritisches  zu  Cynewulfs 

Werken  (Bonn  Diss.).     Halle,  E.  Karras. 

(c)     Modern  English. 

BARRETT-BROWNING,  E.,  I  sonetti  portoghesi.  Studio  e  versione  italiana  di 
Teresa  Venuti  De  Dominicis.  Verona,  Gambari.  2  L. 


138  New  Publications 

BEAUMONT,  F.  AND  FLETCHER,  J.,  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle.  Edited 
with  Introduction,  Notes  and  Glossary  by  H.  S.  Murch.  (Yale  Studies  in 
English,  xxxin.)  New  York,  H.  Holt  and  Co.  2  dol. 

BIRKEDAL,  U.,  William  Morris  og  hans  Betydning.  En  Levnets-skildring. 
Copenhagen,  Bernsteen.  2  Kr.  75. 

BRANDL,  A.,  Anfange  der  Autobiographic  in  England.  (Aus  '  Sitzungsberichte 
der  preuss.  Akad.  der  Wiss.')  Berlin,  G.  Reimer.  50  pf. 

COBB,  P.,  The  Influence  of  E.  T.  A.  Hoffmann  on  The  Tales  of  E.  A.  Poe. 
(Univ.  of  North  Carolina  Studies  in  Philology,  ill.)  Chapel  Hill,  Univ.  of 
North  Carolina  Press. 

COUPER,  W.  J.,  The  Edinburgh  Periodical  Press.  2  vols.  Edinburgh,  E.  Mackay. 
Each  5s.  net. 

FLETCHER,  GILES  and  PHINEAS,  Poetical  Works.  Vol.  I.  Edited  by  F.  S.  Boas. 
Cambridge,  Univ.  Press.  4s.  6d.  net. 

FRISA,  H.,  Deutsche  Kulturverhaltnisse  in  der  Auffassung  W.  M.  Thackerays. 
(Wiener  Beitrage  zur  englischen  Philologie,  xxvu.)  Vienna,  Braumiiller. 
2M. 

GILDERSLEEVE,  V.  C.,  Government  Regulation  of  the  Elizabethan  Drama. 
(Columbia  University  Studies  in  English.)  New  York,  Macmillan  Co. 
1  doL  25  net. 

GREENWOOD,  G.  G.,  The  Shakespeare  Problem  Restated.  London,  J.  Lane. 
21*.  net. 

HOFHERR,  A.,  Thomas  Rymers  dramatische  Kritik  (Beitrage  zur  neueren 
Literaturgeschichte,  l).  Heidelberg,  Winter.  4  M.  20. 

HOLZER,  G.,  Shakespeare  im  Lichte  der  neuesten  Forschung.  Eine  Studie. 
Karlsruhe,  F.  Gutsch.  60  pf. 

JACOBI,  B.,  E.  B.  Browning  als  Ubersetzerin  antiker  Dichtungen  (Miinstersche 
Beitrage  zur  engl.  Literaturgeschichte,  v).  Miinster,  H.  Schoningh.  2  M.  60. 

JOHNSON,  S.,  on  Shakespeare.  Essays  and  Notes  selected  and  set  forth  with  an 
Introduction  by  Walter  Raleigh.  London,  Frowde.  2s.  6d.  net. 

JONSON,  BEN,  Dramen.  In  Neudruck  herausg.  nach  der  Folio  1616  von 
W.  Bang.  ii.  Teil.  (Materialien  zur  Kunde  des  alteren  englischen  Dramas, 
vn.)  Louvain,  Uystpruyst.  25  fr. 

JONSON,  BEN,  The  Fountaine  of  Self-loue  or  Cynthia's  Revels.  Nach  der  Quarto 
1601  in  Neudruck  herausg.  von  W.  Bang  und  L.  Krebs.  (Materialien  zur 
Kunde  des  alteren  euglischen  Dramas,  xxn.)  Louvain,  Uystpruyst.  6  fr. 

LYTTEL,  E.  S.,  Sir  William  Temple.  The  Stanhope  Essay,  1908.  Oxford, 
B.  H.  Blackwell.  2s.  6d.  net. 

Partiall  Law,  The,  A  Tragi-Comedy  by  an  unknown  author  (circa  1615-30). 
Edited  by  B.  Dobell.  London,  B.  Dobell.  5s.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  Hamlet,  Julius  Caesar,  Othello,  Troilus  and  Cressida. 
(Renaissance  Edition.)  London,  G.  G.  Harrap.  Each  7*.  6d. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  Julius  Caesar.  Introduction  by  W.  H.  Hudson.  (Elizabethan 
Shakespeare.)  London,  G.  G.  Harrap.  2*.  6d.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  Much  Adoe  about  Nothing.  Edited  by  W.  G.  B.  Stone. 
(Old  Spelling  Edition.)  London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  2*.  Qd.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor ;  The  Winter's  Tale.  (Old 
Spelling  Edition.)  London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  Each  2s.  6d.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  OZuvres  dramatiques.  Traduction  nouvelle  par  G.  Duval. 
Tome  iv.  Paris,  E.  Flamrnarion.  3  fr.  50. 


New  Publications  139 

SHELLEY,  P.  B.,  Prometheus  Unbound.  Erste  kritische  Textausgabe  von 
R.  Ackermann  (Euglische  Textbibliothek,  xin).  Heidelberg,  Winter. 

2  M.  40. 

SIDGWICK,  F.,  Old  Ballads,  edited  by.  (Pitt  Press  Series.)  Cambridge,  Univ. 
Press.  Is.  6d. 

SIDGWICK,  F.,  The  Sources  and  Analogues  of  'A  Midsummer-Night's  Dream' 
(Shakespeare  Classics).  London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  2s.  Qd.  net. 

TENNYSON,  ALFRED,  LORD,  Ballads  and  other  Poems.  Idylls  of  the  King. 
Demeter  and  other  Poems.  Edited  by  Hallam,  Lord  Tennyson.  (Eversley 
Series.)  London,  Macmillan.  Each  4s.  net. 

THACKERAY,  W.  M.,  Works.  Edited  by  G.  Saintsbury.  Oxford  Edition. 
Vols.  I — vi.  London,  Frowde.  Each  2s.  net. 

TRAHERNE,  TH.,  Centuries  of  Meditations.  Now  first  printed  from  the  author's 
MS.  Edited  by  B.  Dobell.  London,  B.  Dobell.  5s.  net. 

UPHAM,  A.  H.,  The  French  Influence  in  English  Literature  from  the  Accession 
of  Elizabeth  to  the  Restoration  (Columbia  Univ.  Studies  in  Comparative 
Literature).  New  York,  Macmillan  Co.  2  dol.  net. 

VOCHT,  H.  DE,  De  Invloed  van  Erasmus  op  de  engelsche  Tooneelliteratuur  der 
xvie  en  xvne  eeuwen.  I.  Shakespeare  Jest-Books. — Lyly.  Ghent, 
A.  Siffer.  4  fl. 

WURM,  A.,  Shakespeare's  Hamlet  in  seinen  Beziehungen  zur  christlich-mittel- 
alterlichen  und  neuzeitlichen  Kultur.  (Frankfurter  zeitgemiisse  Broschiireu, 
10.)  Hamm,  Breer  und  Thiemann.  50  pf. 

German. 

(a)     General  (Language). 
FISCHER,  H.,  Schwabisches  Worterbuch.   n.  Band.   Tiibingen,  H.  Laupp.   36  M. 

GRIMM,  J.  und  W.,  Deutsches  Worterbuch.  iv,  1.  Abt.,  iii,  8.  Lieferung ;  xin, 
7.  Lieferung.  Leipzig,  Hirzel.  Each  2  M. 

KLUGE,  F.,  Seemannssprache.  Wortgeschichtliches  Handbuch.  2.  Lieferung. 
Halle,  Waisenhaus.  5  M. 

'  MULLER-FRAUREUTH,  K..  Worterbuch  der  obersachsischen  und  erzgebirgischen 
Mundarten   (In   5—6   Lieferungen).       1.    Lieferung.      Dresden,   Baensch. 

3  M.  50. 

SCHIEPEK,  J.,  Der  Satzbau  der  Egerlauder  Mundart.  2.  Teil.  (Beitrage  zur 
Kenntnis  deutsch-bohmischer  Mundarten.)  Prague,  J.  G.  Calve.  10  M. 

(6)     Old  and  Middle  High  German. 

BANZ,  P.  R.,  Christus  und  die  Minnende  Seele.     Zwei  spatmittelhochdeutsche 

mystische   Gedichte.      Im  Anhang  ein    Prosadisput  verwandten  Inhalts. 

Untersuchungen    und    Texte.      (Germanistische    Abhandlungen,    xxix.) 

Breslau,  M.  und  H.  Marcus.     15  M. 

JAFFE,  S.,  Die  Vaganten  und  ihre  Lieder  (Progr.).     Berlin,  Weidmann.     1  M. 
LEHMANN,    P.,    Neue    Bruchstiicke    aus   '  Weingartener '   Itala-Handschriften. 

(Aus  '  Sitzungsberichte  der  kgl.  bayerischen  Akad.  der  Wissensch.')    Munich, 

G.  Franz.     1  M.  60. 
TREU,  W.,  Der  Gotensang.    Theoderich  der  Grosse  im  Vergleiche  zur  deutschen 

Heldensage.     Dietrich  von  Bern.     Dresden,  E.  Pierson.     1  M. 

UHL,  W.,  Winiliod.     (Teutonia,  v.)     Leipzig,  Avenarius.     12  M. 


140  New  Publications 

(c)     Modern  German. 

ARNOLD,  R.  F.,  Bibliographic  der  deutschen  Biihnen  seit  1330.  Vienna,  Stern. 
1  Kr.  20. 

BAUER,  K.,  Goethes  Kopf  und  Gestalt  (Stunden  mit  Goethe,  Sonderheft). 
Berlin,  E.  S.  Mittler.  1  M.  80. 

BAYER,  Jos.,  Studien  und  Charakteristiken.  Dramaturgisches  und  Erinnerun- 
gen  an  Personlichkeiten  (Bibliothek  deutscher  Schriftsteller  aus  Bohmen, 
xx).  Prague,  J.  G.  Calve.  5  Kr. 

BERG,  L.,  Heine — Nietzsche — Ibsen.     Essays.     Berlin,  Concordia.     1  M.  50. 

BOCKEL,  0.,  Handbuch  des  deutschen  Volksliedes.  Zugleich  4.  ganzlich  neu 
gestaltete  Ausgabe  von  A.  F.  C.  Vilmars  Handbiichlein  fiir  Freunde  des 
deutschen  Volksliedes.  Marburg,  Elwert.  5  M. 

BOHME,  L.,  Die  Landschaft  in  den  Werken  Holderlins  und  Jean  Pauls.  Leipzig, 
A.  Deichert.  2  M. 

BRANDL,  B.,  Lessings  Fragmentenstreit.   Programm.   Pilsen,  Maasch.   1  Kr.  60. 

CAMERER,  W.,  E.  Morike  und  Klara  Neufter.  Neue  Untersuchungen.  Marbach, 
Schillerniuseum.  2  M. 

DALMEYDA,  G.,  Goethe  et  le  drame  antique.     Paris,  Hachette.     10  fr. 
DADRIAC,  L.,  Le  musicien  poete  Richard  Wagner.     Paris,  Fischbacher.     5  fr. 

DAVID,  J.  J.,  Gesammelte  Werke.  Herausg.  von  E.  Heilborn  und  E.  Schmidt. 
6  Bande.  Munich,  R.  Piper.  Each  6  M. 

DEILE,  G.,  Goethe  als  Freimaurer.  (Stunden  mit  Goethe.  Sonderheft.) 
Berlin,  E.  S.  Mittler.  3  M. 

DROYSEX,  H.,  Histoire  de  la  dissertation  :  Sur  la  litterature  allemande,  publi^e 
h  Berlin  en  1780.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Charakteristik  des  Staatsministers 
Gr.  vou  Hertzberg  (Progr.).  Berlin,  Weidmann.  1  M. 

ELSTER,  E.,  Tannhauser  in  Geschichte,  Sage  uud  Dichtung.  Ein  Vortrag. 
(Verofteutlichungen  der  deutschen  Gesellschaft  zu  Broniberg,  in.)  Brom- 
berg,  Mittler.  60  pf. 

FRISCHLIN,  N.,  Fraw  Weudelgard.  Herausg.  von  A.  Kuhn  und  E.  Wiedmann. 
Stuttgart,  Griininger.  1  M. 

GEYER,  P.,  Schillers  aesthetisch-sittliche  Weltanschauung  aus  seinen  philo- 
sophischen  Schriften  gemeinverstandlich  erklart.  I.  Teil.  2  Aufl.  Berlin, 
Weidmann.  1  M.  80. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Autobiographische  Schriften.  Herausg.  von  A.  W.  Heymel. 
(Grossherzog  Wilhelm  Ernst- Ausgabe.)  I.  Band.  Dichtung  und  Wahrheit. 
Leipzig,  Insel-Verlag.  6  M. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Briefe.  Ausgewahlt  und  in  chronologischer  Folge  herausg. 
von  E.  von  der  Hellen.  v.  Band  (1807-18).  Stuttgart,  Cotta.  1  M. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Faust.  Neue  Weimarer  Einrichtung  von  K.  Weiser. 
Musik  von  F.  Weingartner.  Leipzig,  Breitkopf  und  Hartel.  1  M.  50. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Faust.  First  Part  transl.  into  English  verse  by  Sir  George 
Buchanan.  London,  Alston  Rivers.  3s.  6d.  net 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Poetry  and  Truth  from  my  own  Life.  Revised  and 
translated  by  Minna  Steele  Smith.  2  vols.  (Bohn's  Libraries.)  London, 
Bell.  3s.  6d. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Werke.  Herausg.  von  K.  Heinemann.  xxx.  Band. 
Leipzig,  Bibl.  Institut.  2  M. 


Neiv  Publications  141 

HEBBEL,  F.,  Briefe.  Ausgewahlt  und  biographisch  verbunden  von  K.  Kiichler. 
Jena,  Costenoble.  2  M.  80. 

HEINZMANN,  F.,  Justinus  Kerner  als  Eomantiker.  Tubingen,  H.  Laupp. 
3  M.  60. 

HOEBER,  K.,  F.  W.  Weber.  Sein  Leben  und  seine  Dichtung.  3.  Aufl.  Pader- 
born,  F.  Schoningh.  1  M.  20. 

HOFFMANN,  E.  T.  A.,  Samtliche  Werke.  Historisch-kritische  Ausgabe  von 
C.  G.  von  Maassen.  n.  Band.  Munich,  G.  Miiller.  5  M. 

KLEIN,  E.  VON,  Max  von  Schenkendorf.  Eine  literarhistorische  Studie.  Vienna, 
Gerold.  2  Kr. 

KLEIST,  H.  VON,  Briefe  an  seine  Schwester  Ulrike.  Mit  Einleitung  von 
S.  Rahmer.  2.  (Titel-) Ausgabe.  Berlin,  Behr.  2  M. 

KNETSCH,  C.,  Goethes  Ahnen.     Leipzig,  Klinkhardt  und  Biermann.     4  M.  50. 

KONIQ,  J.,  Karl  Spindler.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  des  historischen  Romans 
in  Deutschland.  (Breslauer  Beitrage  zur  Literaturgeschichte,  v.)  Leipzig, 
Quelle  und  Meyer.  4  M. 

KRUGER-WESTEND,  H.,  Goethe  in  Dorriburg.     Jena,  Costenoble.     1  M.  50. 

KUHN,  E.,  J.  G.  Hamann,  der  Magus  im  Norden.  Versuch  einer  ersten  Ein- 
fiihrung  in  seine  Autorschaft.  Giitersloh,  C.  Bertelsmann.  1  M.  60. 

LADENDORF,  0.,  Hans  Hoffmann.  Sein  Lebensgang  und  seine  Werke.  Berlin, 
Paetel.  5  M. 

LAUBE,  H.,  Gesammelte  Werke  in  50  Banden.  Unter  Mitwirkung  von  A.  Ha'nel 
herausg.  von  H.  H.  Houben.  4.-6.  Band.  Leipzig,  Hesse.  2  M.  50. 

LEPPMANN,  F.,  Kater  Murr  und  seine  Sippe  von  der  Romantik  bis  zu  V.  Scheffel 
und  G.  Keller.  Munich,  C.  H.  Beck.  2  M. 

LIGHTEN  BERG,  G.  C.,  Aphorismen.  Nach  den  Handschriften  herausg.  von 
A.  Leitzmann.  iv.  Heft.  1789-93.  (Deutsche  Derikmale  des  18.  und  19. 
Jahrh.,  No.  140.)  Berlin,  B.  Behr.  6  M. 

LUTHER,  M.,  Werke.  Kritische  Gesamtausgabe.  xvm  und  xxxiv,  1.  Weimar, 
H.  Bohlau.  24  M.  and  17  M.  60. 

Lux,  K.,  J.  K.  F.  Manso,  der  schlesische  Schulmann,  Dichter  uiid  Historiker. 
(Breslauer  Beitrage  zur  Literaturgeschichte,  iv.)  Leipzig,  Quelle  und 
Meyer.  6  M.  40. 

MOLLER,  H.,  Hebbel  als  Lyriker.     (Progr.)     Cuxhaven,  A.  Rauschenplat.    2  M. 

MONTAG,  W.,  Kornelius  von  Ayrenhoff.  Sein  Leben  und  seine  Schriften. 
(Miinstersche  Beitrage  zur  neueren  Literaturgeschichte,  vi.)  Miiuster, 
H.  Schoningh.  2  M.  60. 

MUCKE,  G.,  H.  Heines  Beziehungen  zum  deutschen  Mittelalter  (Forschungen 
zur  neueren  Literaturgeschichte,  xxiv).  Berlin,  Duncker.  4  M.  50. 

NIETEN,  0.,  Chr.  D.  Grabbe.  Sein  Lebeu  und  seine  Werke  (Schriften  der 
literarhistorischen  Gesellschaft  Bonn,  iv).  Dortmund,  Ruhfus.  10  M. 

NOVALIS,  F.,  Henri,  d'Ofterdingen.     Paris,  Mercure  de  France.     3  fr.  50. 

PAOLI,  BETTY,  Gesammelte  Aufsatze.  Eingeleitet  und  herausgegeben  von 
H.  Bettelheim-Gabillon.  Vienna,  Literarischer  Verein. 

PICHLER,  A.,  Gesammelte  Werke.  11.  und  12.  Bd.  (Beitrage  zur  Literatur- 
geschichte, 1,  2.)  Munich,  G.  Miiller.  Each  4  M. 

REINHARD,  E.,  Eichendorffstudien  (Miinstersche  Beitrage  zur  neueren  Literatur- 
geschichte, v).  Miinster,  Schoningh.  2  M. 


142  New  Publications 

ROHR,  J.,  Wildenbruch  als  Dramatiker.  Kritische  Untersuchungen.  Berlin, 
Duncker.  3  M.  50. 

SAKHEIM,  A.,  E.  T.  A.  Hoffmann.  Studien  zu  seiner  Personlichkeit  und  seinen 
Werken.  Leipzig,  H.  Haessel.  6  M. 

SCHEFFEL,  J.  V.  vox,  Nachgelassene  Dichtungen.  Gfesamtausgabe  von  J.  Proelss. 
Stuttgart,  A.  Bonz  und  Co.  2  M. 

SCHMID,  F.  A.,  F.  H.  Jacobi.  Eiue  Darstellung  seiner  Personlichkeit  und  seiner 
Philosophic  als  Beitrag  zu  einer  Geschichte  des  moderuen  Wertproblems. 
Heidelberg,  Winter.  8  M. 

STILLER,  O.,  J.  J.  Volkmann,  eine  Quelle  fiir  Goethes  italienische  Reise.  Mit 
einer  Wiedergabe  von  Guercinos  '  Petronilla'  (Progr.).  Berlin,  Weidmann. 
1  M. 

STODTE,  IT.,  F.  Hebbels  Drama,  aus  der  Weltanschauung  und  den  Hiuweisen 
des  Dichters  erlautert.  Stuttgart,  W.  Violet.  80  pf. 

SULGER-GEBING,  E.,  Peter  Cornelius  als  Mensch  und  Dichter.  Munich,  C.  H. 
Beck.  2  M.  50. 

URBAN,  R.,  Die  literarische  Gegenwart.  Zwanzig  Jahre  deutschen  Schrifttums, 
1888—1908.  Leipzig,  Xenien-Verlag.  5  M. 

WERNER,  R.  M.,  G.  E.  Leasing  (Wissenschaft  und  Bildung,  LII).  Leipzig, 
Quelle  und  Meyer.  1  M. 


PERIODICAL  LITERATURE. 

ARCHIV  FUR  DAS  STUDIUM  DER  NEUEREN  SPRACHEN  UND  LITERATUREN,  LXII,  3,  4 
(July  1908).  II.  Schneider,  Goethes  Prosahymnus  'Die  Natur.'  H.  Jantzen, 
Eine  zeitgenossische  Beurteilung  von  H.  L.  Wagners  '  Kindermorderin. ' 
J.  Crosland,  J.  F.  W.  Zacharia  and  his  English  models.  M.  Forster,  Beitrage 
zur  mittelalterlichen  Volkskunde,  II.  H.  Jensen,  Zu  Vanbrughs  '  The  False 
Friend.'  E.  Sieper,  Spuren  ophitisch-gnostischer  Einfliisse  in  den  Dichtungen 
Shelleys.  A.  Tzeutschler,  Zu  Tennysons  '  Locksley  Hall '  :  The  poem  of 
Amriolkais.  F.  Liebermann,  Angelsachsisch  fcerbena.  P.  Usteri,  Briefwechsel 
Salomon  Gesners  mit  Heinrich  Meister  (1770-79).  G.  Cohn,  Zu  Petrarcas 
Sonett  '  Due  rose '  (Schluss).  A.  Parducci,  Un  canzoniere  francese  del  sec. 

XVI.      I. 

BULLETIN  OF  TBE  WASHINGTON  UNIVERSITY  ASSOCIATION,  vi  (1908).  O.  Heller, 
C.  Sealsfield.  P.  Seiberth,  Four  Masters  of  the  Modern  German  Novelle. 
W.  H.  Chenery,  Spanish  Drama  in  the  Seventeenth  Century. 

LA  CRITICA,  vi,  4  (July  20,  1908).  B.  Croce,  Note  sulla  letteratura  italiana  nella 
seconda  metk  del  sec.  xix.  26.  Ferdinando  Martini.  B.  Croce,  Aggiunte 
agli  appunti  bibliografici  intorno  agli  scrittori  italiani  dei  quali  si  e  discorso 
nelle  Note  inserite  nelle  prime  cinque  aunate  della  '  Critica '  (continuazioue). 

MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES,  xxm,  6  (June  1908).  A.  S.  Cook,  Familia  Goliae. 
T.  A.  Jenkins,  Villoniana.  G.  L.  Hamilton,  Chauceriana,  I.  O.  Heller,  The 
Source  of  Chapter  I  of  Sealsneld's '  Lebensbilder  aus  der  westlichen  Hemisphare,'  I. 
H.  C.  Lancaster,  The  Rule  of  Three  Actors  in  French  Sixteenth  Century 
Tragedy.  H.  M.  Ayres, 'The  Faerie  Queene' and 'Amis  and  Amiloun.'  C.  H. 
Ibershoff,  A  Curious  Mistake  in  Freytag's  '  Die  Journalisten.'  E.  B.  Reed, 
Some  Unpublished  Notes  on  Lord  Macaulay,  I.  M.  A.  Buchanan,  Cervantes 
as  a  Dramatist.  W.  P.  Reeves,  Felgerole. 


New  Publications  143 

MODERN  PHILOLOGY,  vi,  1  (July  1908).  Philip  S.  Allen,  Mediaeval  Latin  Lyrics,  n. 
E.  C.  Armstrong,  The  French  Past  Definite,  Imperfect,  and  Past  Indefinite. 
W.  H.  Carpenter,  Dutch  Contributions  to  the  Vocabulary  of  English  in 
America.  Lucy  M.  Gay,  On  the  Language  of  Christine  de  Pisan.  I.  C.  Le 
Compte,  Giraut  Riquier  and  the  Viscount  of  Narbonne.  C.  R.  Baskerville, 
Some  Parallels  to  '  Bartholomew  Fair.'  W.  H.  Hulme,  A  Probable  Source  for 
some  of  the  Lore  of  Fitzherbert's  '  Book  of  Husbandry.'  F.  B.  Snyder,  A  Note 
on'SirThopas.' 

PUBLICATIONS  OP  THE  MODERN  LANGUAGE  ASSOCIATION  OF  AMERICA,  xxm,  2  (June 
1908).  J.  W.  Cunliffe,  Elizabeth  Barrett's  Influence  on  Browning's  Poetry. 
E.  A.  Allen,  English  Doublets.  M.  A.  Buchanan,  Segismundo's  Soliloquy  on 
Liberty  in  Calder6n's  'La  Vida  es  Sueiio.'  F.  G.  Hubbard,  The  Undergraduate 
Curriculum  in  English  Literature.  F.  M.  Warren,  On  the  Date  and  Composition 
of  Guillaume  de  Lorris'  'Roman  de  la  Rose.'  J.  L.  Lowes,  The  Date  of 
Chaucer's  '  Troilus  and  Criseyde.'  II.  C.  Lancaster,  A  Neglected  Passage  on 
the  Three  Unities  of  the  French  Classic  Drama.  R,  D.  Miller,  Coordination 
and  the  Comma. 

STUDI  DI  FILOLOGIA  MODERNA,  i,  1-2  (January-June  1908).  A  Farinelli,  L'  'umanita' 
di  Herder  e  il  concetto  evolutive  delle  razze  (Prolusione).  P.  Savj-Lopez, 
L'  ultimo  romanzo  del  Cervantes  ('  Persiles  y  Sigismunda  ').  Communicazioni : 
G.  Bertoni,  Accenni  alia  Storia  del  Costume  in  una  versione  francese  dell'  'Ars 
Amatoria.'  H.  Hauvette,  Pour  la  fortune  de  Boccace  en  France.  G.  Manacorda, 
Per  un  aneddoto  conteuuto  nelle  'Hore  di  Ricreazione'  di  L.  Guicciardini. 
E.  Mele,  II  metro  del  primo  coro  dell'  Adelchi  e  il  metro  d'  'Arte  mayor.' 
G.  Mazzoni,  E.  Turquety  e  A.  Manzoui. 

STUDIEN  ZUR  VERGLEICHENDEN  LITERATURGESCHICHTE,  vm,  3  (July  1908).  A.  L. 
Stiefel,  Neue  Beitrage  zur  QueUenkunde  Hans  Sachsischer  Fabeln  und 
Schwanke.  R.  M.  Werner,  Historische  und  poetische  Chronologic  bei  Grim- 
rnelshausen,  ni-vi.  E.  Sulger-Gebing,  Noch  einmal  Goethe  und  Dante. 
L.  Geiger,  Ungedruckte  Briefe  und  Gedichte  Justinus  Kerners. 


ROMANIA,  xxxvn,  147  (July  1908).  Fr.  Lo  Parco,  II  Petrarca  e  gli  antipodi 
etnografici.  P.  Meyer,  Recettes  medicales  en  frangais  publiees  d'apres  le  MS. 
B.  N.  lat.  8654  B.  E.  Muret,  De  quelques  desinences  de  noms  de  lieu 
particulierement  frequentes  dans  la  Suisse  romande  et  en  Savoie  (suite). 
G.  Lavergne,  Documents  du  xive  siecle  en  langage  de  Sarlat  (Dordogne). 
A.  Thomas,  Fr.  vernis.  M.  Roques,  Aveneril,  blaeril,  etc. 

ZEITSCHRIFT  FUR  FRANZOSISCHE  SPRACHE  UND  LITERATUR,  xxxm,  1  and  3  (May 
1908).  L.  Haeberli,  Die  Entwicklung  der  lateinischen  Gruppen  kl,  gl,  pi,  bl,fl 
im  Franko-Provenzalischen.  K.  Glaser,  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  politischen 
Literatur  Frankreichs  in  der  zweiten  Halfte  des  16.  Jahrhumlerts,  i  (Schluss). 
J.  Haas,  Balzacstudien,  ill.  D.  Behrens,  Wortgeschichtliches  afrz.  adiquedune, 
burg,  ansiau,  afrz.  are[i]r,  autys  etc.,  drivonnette,  afrz.  droisne,  norm,  snilles. 

ZEITSCHRIFT  FUR  ROMANISCHE  PHILOLOGIE,  xxxn,  4  (July  1908).  H.  R.  Lang,  Zum 
'Cancioneiro  da  Ajuda'  (Schluss).  F.  Settegast,  Byzantinisch-Geschichtliches 
im  'Cliges'  und  '  Yvain.'  G.  Baist,  Etymologien.  P.  Skok,  Podium  in  Siid- 
frankreich.  W.  Forster,  Etymologien. 

REVISTA  DE  ARCHIVOS,  BIBLIOTECAS  Y  MUSEOS,  xn,  3,  4  (March-April,  1908). 
Angel  del  Arco,  Apuntes  bio-bibliograficos  de  algunos  poetas  granadinos  de  los 
siglos  xvi  y  xvn.  Una  obra  inedita  de  Tirso  de  Molina  (cont.). 


AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  PHILOLOGY,  xxix,  1  (March  1908).     W.  P.  Mustard,  Virgil's 
'  Georgics '  and  the  British  Poets. 


144  New  Publications 

ANGLIA,  xxxi,  3  (August  1908).  W.  J.  Lawrence,  Who  wrote  the  famous  '  Macbeth' 
music  ?  F.  M.  Padelford,  Liedersammlungen  des  xvi.  Jahrhunderts,  besonders 
aus  der  Zeit  Heinrichs  VIII.  iv,  7.  The  Songs  in  Manuscript  Rawlinson  C.  813. 
Th.  Miihe,  Uber  die  'Ancren  Riwle.'  A  Piittmann,  Die  Syntax  der  sogenannten 
progressiven  form  im  alt-  und  friihmittelenglischen. 

ENGLISCHE  STUDIEN,  xxxix,  2  (July  1908).  H.  Weyhe,  Zur  palatisierung  von  in- 
und  auslautendem  sk  im  Altenglischeu.  K.  Wildhagen,  Zum  'Eadwine-  und 
Regius- Psalter.'  D.  L.  Thomas,  On  the  play  'Pericles.'  Miscellen  :  F.  Klaeber, 
Zum  Finnsburg-Kampfe.  J.  de  Perott,  R.  Greenes  Entlehnung  aus  dem 
'  Ritterspiegel.' 

GOETHE-JAHRBUCH,  xxix.  I.  Neue  Mitteilungen  :  Briefe  von  und  an  Goethe,  etc. 
II.  Abhandlungen  :  A.  Koster,  Zur  Datierung  und  Deutung  einiger  Gedichte 
Goethes.  G.  von  Graevenitz,  Die  '  Trilogie  der  Leidenschaft.'  R.  Petsch, 
Faust-Studien.  H.  Funck,  Lavater  als  Autor  der  sogenannten  mittleren 
Fassung  von  Goethes  '  Iphigenie.'  L.  Milch,  Goethes  Beziehungen  zu  dem 
Mineralogen  K.  C.  von  Leon  hard.  E.  Wrangel,  'Werther'  und  das  Werther- 
fieber  in  Schweden.  0.  Pniower,  Zu  Goethes  Wortgebrauch.  III.  Miscellen, 
Chronik,  Bibliographic.  Festvortrag :  Goethe  und  sein  Publikum  von  A. 
Koster. 

JAHRBUCH  DER  DEUTSCHEN  SHAKESPEARE-GESELLSCHAFT,  XLIV.  L.  Morsbach, 
Shakespeare  als  Mensch  (Festvortrag).  R.  Eberstadt,  Der  Shylockvertrag 
und  sein  Urbild.  W.  J.  Lawrence,  Music  in  the  Elizabethan  Theatre. 
P.  Kannengiesser,  Eine  Doppelredaktion  in  Shakespeares  'Julius  Caesar.' 
S.  Blach,  Shakespeares  Lateingrammatik.  E.  Rona-Sklarek,  '  Cymbeline '  in 
Ungarn.  M.  J.  Wolff,  Shakespeare  im  Buchhandel  seiner  Zeit.  Kleinere 
Mitteilungen,  etc.  Shakespeare-Bibliographic,  1907. 

JAHRBUCH  DER  GRILLPARZER-GESELLSCHAPT,  xvni.  M.  Mell,  Versuch  iiber  das 
Lebensgefiihl  in  Grillparzers  Dramen.  G.  Gugitz,  Alois  Blumauer.  A.  Schlossar, 
A.  Griins  Briefe  aus  Helgoland  an  seine  Gemahlin  1850  uud  1854.  L.  Schmidt, 
Eine  autobiographische  Skizze  Josef  Christian  von  Zedlitz'.  S.  Hock,  Briefe 
Betty  Paolis  an  Leopold  Kompert.  A.  Farinelli,  J.  J.  Davids  Kunst.  A.  Schaer, 
J.  N.  Bachmayers  Briefe  an  Gottfried  Keller,  1850-52.  O.  E.  Deutsch,  F.  Kiirn- 
berger  und  die  poetische  Gerechtigkeit. 

REVUE  GERMANIQUE,  iv,  4  (July-August,  1908).  H.  Bauer,  La  conception  de 
1'Hellenisme  dans  Goethe  et  dans  Frederic  Nietzsche.  L.  Cazamian,  L'intuition 
pantheiste  chez  les  romantiques  anglais.  Essai  d'interpre"tation  positive. 
iv,  3  (May-June,  1908).  I.  Talayrach,  Julius  Bahnsen,  1'homtne  et  1'ceuvre. 
C.  Pitollet,  Lettres  inedites  de  Thomas  Carlyle,  John  Murray  et  J.  D.  Aitken 
a  N.  H.  Julius,  avec  une  notice  sur  ce  dernier.  L.  Chaffurin,  L'eVolution 
morale  de  'Silas  Marner.' 

TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  ROYAL  SOCIETY  OF  LITERATURE,  xxvm,  2.  W.  E.  A.  Axon> 
Anna  Jane  Vardill  Niven,  the  Authoress  of  '  Christobell,'  the  Sequel  to 
Coleridge's  'Christabel';  with  an  additional  note  on  'Christabel'  by  E.  Hartley. 
J.  W.  Mackaii,  Sir  Richard  Fanshawe.  F.  Galton,  Suggestions  for  improving 
the  Literary  Style  of  Scientific  Memoirs. 


VOLUME  IV  JANUARY,  1909  NUMBER  2 


DANTE,   GUIDO   GUINICELLI  AND 
AftNAUT   DANIEL. 

IN  Dante's  conversations  with  Bonagiunta  of  Lucca  (Purg.,  xxiv), 
with  Guido  Guinicelli  and  Arnaut  Daniel  (Purg.,  xxvi)  there  are  many 
difficulties,  but  the  general  argument  is  clear.  Dante's  poetical  mind 
is  concerned  with  the  same  matters  to  which  he  gives  philological 
attention  in  the  essay  De  Vulgari  Eloquentia.  Here  as  there  he 
distinguishes  an  earlier  from  a  later  period  of  lyric  art,  both  in  Italian 
and  Provengal ;  he  claims  his  own  place  among  the  poets  of  the  later, 
the  more  proficient  school;  he  recognises  Guido  Guinicelli  as  the 
founder  of  this  order  in  Italy  and  associates  with  him  the  Provengal 
poet  Arnaut  Daniel,  as  standing  in  the  .same  sort  of  relation  to  his 
contemporary  poets.  We  see  clearly  enough  that  Dante  had  worked 
out  for  himself  a  scheme  of  literary  history  in  which  Italian  and 
Provengal  poetry  are  developed  in  the  same  way,  and  illustrate  one 
another  through  their  likeness  and  differences.  Each  passes  through  a 
stage  of  superficial  brilliance,  represented,  in  Italy  by  Bonagiunta  of 
Lucca,  the  Notary  of  Lentino,  and  Guittone  of  Arezzo ;  in  Provengal  by 
Guiraut  de  Bornelh,  'quel  di  Lemosi.'  In  each  country  this  earlier 
stage  is  passed,  and  there  comes  a  more  elaborate  and  effective  method, 
a  loftier  poetic  aim — the  ambitious  verse  of  Arnaut  Daniel,  the  '  new 
style '  of  Guido  Guinicelli.  In  each  case  a  popular  opinion  is  refuted 
by  the  progress  of  Poesy.  Guittone  of  Arezzo  is  put  out  of  countenance 
by  comparison  with  the  newer  school ;  Guiraut  de  Bornelh,  in  spite  of 
popular  favour,  is  not  the  true  master  among  the  troubadours. 

One  difficulty  is  that  Dante's  profession  of  poetic  faith,  in  this  same 
context,  seems  at  first  to  disagree  with  his  preference  of  the  more 
learned  poets : 

Io  mi  son  un  che  quando 
Amore  spira  noto ;  ed  a  quel  modo 
Che  ditta  dentro,  vo  significando. 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  10 


146        Dante,  Guido  Guinicelli  and  Arnaut  Daniel 

This  sounds  at  first  like  Sidney's  glorious  rejection  of  all  varieties : 

I  beg  no  subject  to  use  eloquence 

Nor  in  hid  ways  do  guide  philosophic  ; 

Looke  at  my  hands  for  no  such  quintessence 

But  know  that  I  in  pure  simplicitie 

Breathe  out  the  flames  which  burne  within  my  heart, 

Love  only  reading  unto  me  this  arte. 

But  Dante  does  not  speak  'in  pure  simplicity'  and  to  look  at  his 
hands  for  '  quintessence '  is  no  futile  thing.  It  was  precisely  by  this 
'quintessential'  mood  that  the  new  style  of  Guido  and  his  followers 
distinguished  itself  from  that  of  Bonagiunta,  Guittone  and  the  Notary. 
So  far  was  the  new  style  from  simplicity  that  it  provoked  the  opposition 
of  the  older  school,  with  Bonagiunta  himself  as  their  spokesman.  The 
place  given  to  Bonagiunta  by  Dante  can  hardly  have  been  chosen 
without  some  reference  to  the  sonnet  in  which  he  challenged  Guido  for 
his  laboured  style : 

Ma  si  passate  ogn'  om  di  sottiglianza 
Che  non  si  trova  gia  chi  ben  vi  spogna 
Cotant'  e  scura  vostra  parladura1. 

The  substance  of  the  contention  may  be  thus  rendered,  in  prose  : 

Bonagiunta  to  Guido. 

'  Since  you  have  changed  the  manner  of  the  pleasing  verses  of  love 
from  the  form  and  essence  they  had  before,  in  order  to  outvie  every 
other  poet,  you  have  done  like  the  light  that  lights  up  dark  corners, 
but  not  the  sphere  of  heaven  which  has  no  rival  in  its  clearness.  But 
you  outgo  all  men  so  in  subtil  ty  that  no  one  is  found  to  explain  you,  so 
obscure  is  your  fashion  of  speech.  And  it  is  held  a  great  anomaly, 
albeit  that  wit  comes  from  Bologna,  to  utter  an  ode  by  dint  of  Scripture.' 

Guido  to  Bonagiunta. 

'The  wise  man  runs  not  lightly  but  his  thinking  and  liking  are 
ruled  by  measure ;  when  he  has  thought  he  withholds  his  thought  till 
truth  assures  it.  A  man  ought  not  to  be  too  high-minded,  but  have 
regard  to  his  condition  and  nature :  the  fool  thinks  that  he  alone  sees 
the  truth  and  does  not  believe  that  another  may  have  concern  therein. 
There  are  fowls  in  the  air  of  divers  fashion,  not  all  of  one  flight  nor  one 
desire ;  they  have  different  works  and  ways.  God  ordered  Nature  and 
the  World  according  to  degrees,  and  made  disparity  of  wits  and  under- 
standing :  and  therefore  what  a  man  thinks  he  shall  not  say.' 

1  The  tenzone  is  given  by  Monaci,  Crestomazia,  pp.  303,  4.     The  phrase  'trare  canzon  ' 
(Bonagiunta,  1.  14)  may  have  been  in  Dante's  mind,  Purg.  xxiv,  50. 


W.    P.    KER  147 

It  is  not  a  gift  of  simple  or  direct  expression  that  Dante  claims.  He 
has  learned  from  Guido  Guinicelli,  and  Guide's  poetry  can  be  recognised 
even  at  this  distance  of  time  by  readers  in  a  foreign  country,  as  some- 
thing new  and  strange,  a  spirit  not  indeed  Platonic  in  the  technical 
sense,  like  the  Platonism  of  the  Renaissance,  but  none  the  less  truly 
allied  to  the  doctrine  of  Plato,  and  his  worship  of  the  beauty  that  is 
above  the  heavens.  When  Dante  says  Amor  mi  spira  the  word  has  for 
him  all  the  inextricable  variety  of  meanings  that  it  had  gained  in  the 
philosophic  school  of  poetry,  founded  by  the  one  Guido  and  continued 
by  the  other,  Guido  Cavalcanti,  with  greater  scholastic  elaboration.  It 
recalls  to  him  the  vicissitudes  of  his  poetical  life;  all  the  curious 
allegorical  play  of  his  mind  between  passion  and  doctrine  in  the  Vita 
Nuova  and  Convivio.  It  is  not  simple1. 

In  Proven9al  poetry  there  is  a  contest  between  Guiraut  de  Bornelh2 
and  another  poet  (probably  Raimbaut  of  Orange)  which  Dante  may 
possibly  have  remembered.  Guiraut  here  is  the  advocate,  like 
Bonagiunta,  of  clear  poetry  against  the  trobar  clus,  the  difficult  style. 
Though  his  opponent  is  not  Arnaut  Daniel  in  person,  the  theory  main- 
tained against  him  is  that  of  which  Arnaut  had  made  himself  the  chief 
professor.  Dante's  praise  of  Arnaut,  at  first  not  easy  to  understand, 
and  the  poetical  sympathy  which  he  imagines  between  Arnaut  and  Guido, 
become  more  intelligible  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  two  poets  had 
held  similar  positions  in  the  same  literary  revolution. 

Yet,  withal,  there  is  something  very  hard  to  solve  in  Dante's 
estimate  of  Arnaut.  Dante  not  merely  praises  him ;  speaking  by  the 
mouth  of  Guido  he  gives  him  the  supremacy ;  he  is  the  chief  poet  of 

1  Of.  G.  A.  Cesareo  in  Miscellanea  di  Studi  Critici  edita  in  onore  di  Arturo  Graf, 
Bergamo,  1903,  p.  515  sqq. 

2  A.   Kolsen,    Guiraut   von    Bornelh,   der   Meister    der    Troubadours,    Berlin,   1894 ; 
H.  J.  Chaytor,  Troubadours  of  Dante,  Oxford,  1902. 

The  debate  runs  in  this  way : 

'  Pray  tell  iis,  Guiraut,  why  you  go  blaming  the  harder  style :  do  you  value  highly  what 
is  public  and  common?  That  would  make  all  men  equal.' 

'  Linhaure,  I  am  not  to  blame  though  every  poet  follow  his  own  bent ;  for  myself  I  hold 
the  song  better  loved  and  praised  when  the  maker  shapes  it  light  and  simple ;  bear  me  no 
grudge  for  this.' 

'  Guiraut,  I  would  not  have  such  verse  for  mine  that  none  should  love  the  good  more 
than  the  base,  the  great  than  the  petty.  Fools  will  not  praise  it,  for  they  know  not  nor 
reck  not  of  what  is  most  dear  and  precious.' 

'  Linhaure,  why  do  you  make  poetry  if  you  do  not  wish  the  multitude  to  know  it?  For 
song  has  no  other  profit. ' 

1  Guiraut,  let  me  only  fashion  the  better  sort  and  utter  it,  I  care  not  whether  it  have 
vogue  or  no.  Small  grace  there  is  in  cheapness.' 

(Guiraut,  sol  quel  meills  apareill 
e  digu'  ades,  e  tragu'  enan 
me  no  cal,  si  tan  no  s'  espan.) 

10—2 


148        Dante,  Guido  Guinicelli  and  Arnaut  Daniel 

love.  Now  Arnaut  has  nothing  of  that  idealism  which  was  the  essence 
of  the  'new  style'  in  Italy,  though  he  may  resemble  Guido  in  his 
opposition  to  the  easier  and  more  trivial  kinds  of  poetry.  Is  one  to 
suppose  that  Dante  gave  him  his  place  entirely  by  reason  of  his  peculiar 
verse  and  diction  ? 

Undoubtedly  part  of  the  truth  is  that  Arnaut  appealed  to  Dante 
through  the  art  of  his  verse,  in  the  Sestina  and  other  stanzas  of  the 
same  type  : — sub  una  oda  continua . . .  sine  iteratione  modulation/is 
cujusquam  et  sine  diesi,  as  it  is  explained  by  Dante,  Vulg.  Eloq.,  n,  10. 

The  Sestina  is  the  most  complete  and  absolute  among  all  the  forms 
of  stanza ;  a  perfect  period  which  cannot  be  greater  or  less,  which  allows 
no  interpolation  or  digression  but  proceeds  infallibly  from  beginning  to 
end  under  its  own  law.  Dante's  respect  for  Arnaut  is  one  among  many 
examples  of  his  love  of  symmetry.  To  Dante,  a  clear  and  exact  formula 
was  irresistible,  and  Arnaut's  verse  had  carried  the  formula  to  perfection ; 
therefore  Dante  admired  him.  This  will  hardly  be  questioned;  it  is 
plain  in  many  other  parts  of  Dante's  writing  what  power  there  was  in 
abstract  formulas  to  control  and  fascinate  his  mind ;  how  partial  some 
of  his  judgments  are,  under  the  influence  of  abstract  considerations. 
There  is  nothing  unlike  Dante  in  his  preference  of  Arnaut  for  the  sake 
of  his  oda  continua.  But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  in  Vulg.  Eloq. 
while  he  speaks  of  Arnaut  with  respect,  Dante  does  not  exaggerate  his 
terms  of  praise  on  this  account,  and  does  not  give  him  anything  like 
pre-eminence  among  lyric  poets.  Also  he  praises  Arnaut  not  only  for 
his  verse  but  for  his  poetical  diction,  which  is  another  thing  altogether, 
and  much  harder  to  understand.  Dante's  theory  of  lyric  verse  is 
intelligible,  and  likewise  his  praise  of  Arnaut's  stanzas  for  their  formal 
beauty.  But  his  theory  of  diction  is  harder  to  understand  than  any- 
thing else  in  his  works;  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  make  out  his  classifica- 
tion of  vocabula  pexa  et  irsuta  in  connexion  with  the  examples  which 
he  gives.  However,  it  is  plain  that  there  is,  somewhere  in  his  theory, 
a  principle  of  verbal  euphony ;  and  it  is  certain  that  no  force  or 
persuasion  can  make  Arnaut's  syllables  agree  with  any  such  law.  His 
Winter  Ode — quoted  by  Dante — uses  in  close  conjunction  words  like 
letz,  bees,  mutz,  which  no  philology  can  reconcile  with  Dante's  theory  of 
diction : 

L'  aura  amara 

Fals  bruoills  brancutz 

Clarzir 

Quel  doutz  espeissa  ab  fuoills 

Els  letz 


W.    P.    KER  149 

Bees 

Dels  auzels  rarnencs 

Ten  balps  e  mutz, 

Pars 

E  non  pars ; 

Per  qu'  eu  m'  esfortz 

De  far  e  dir 

Plazers 

A  mains  per  liei 

Que  m'  a  virat  bas  d'  aut, 

Don  tern  morir 

Sils  afans  no  m'  asoma. 

The  effect  of  this — letz,  bees,  balps  e  mutz, — has  some  likeness  to 
Marston's  Winter  Prologue : 

The  rawish  dank  of  clumsy  winter  ramps 
The  fluent  summer's  vein,  and  drizzling  sleet 
Chilleth  the  wan  bleak  cheek  of  the  numb'd  earth. 

Milton,  who  laughed  at  Bishop  Hall  for  a  line  beginning  '  Teach  each/ 
would  have  been  as  severe  to  this  poem  of  Arnaut's  as  Dante  ought  to 
have  been,  on  his  own  principles.  There  is  ingenuity,  no  doubt,  in  the 
way  Arnaut  drills  his  syllables  and  manages  his  difficult  pattern  of 
verse.  But  the  ingenuity  is  very  like  that  of  the  trivial  early  poets 
whom  Dante  depreciates,  and  very  unlike  that  of  Dante  himself. 
Indeed  the  verse  of  Arnaut  is  rather  exceptionally  unlike  the  Italian 
manner ;  the  things  that  might  be  expected  to  win  Dante's  approval  are 
not  easily  found  in  Arnaut.  There  is  nothing  of  that  noble  harmony 
which  Dante  has  described  (Vulg.  Eloq.,  n,  5),  the  right  proportion 
between  the  heptasyllable  and  the  heroic  line.  In  this,  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say,  lies  the  secret  of  the  Italian  Canzone,  as  well  as  the 
elective  affinity  between  Italian  and  English  verse  in  their  noblest 
passages.  For  of  course  the  English  correspondence  of  ten  and  six  is 
the  same  as  the  Italian  of  eleven  and  seven — the  same  in  The  Scholar- 
Gipsy  as  in  the  Epithalamion  or  Lycidas : 

Fame  is  no  plant  that  grows  on  mortal  soil 

Nor  in  the  glistering  foil 

Set  off  to  the  world  nor  in  broad  Rumour  lies. 

This  prosodic  form  belongs  peculiarly  to  the  Italian  poets;  it  is  not 
French  or  Proven9al.  But  it  is  found  occasionally  as  if  by  accident  in 
Proven9al ;  there  is  only  a  hint  of  it  in  Arnaut : 

Doutz  brais  e  critz 

Lais  e  cantars  e  voutas 

Aug  dels  auzels  qu'  en  lur  latin  fan  precs. 

He  prefers  a  combination  of  eight  and  ten,  which  is  not  favoured  in 


150        Dante,   Guido  Guinicelli  and  Arnaut  Daniel 

Italy  (nor  in  England).  Some  of  his  rhyming  runs  have  a  quaint  effect: 
the  verse  of  the  Nut  Brown  Maid  comes  as  part  of  a  stanza : 

Ges  per  janguoill  nom  vir  aillor 

Bona  dompna,  ves  cui  ador ; 

Mas  per  paor 

Del  devinaill 

Don  jois  trassaill, 

Fatz  semblau  que  nous  vuoilla ; 

C'  anc  nous  gauzim 

De  lor  noirim: 

Malmes,  que  lor  acuoilla ! 

(ed.  Canello,  No.  II.) 

This  sounds  well  enough,  to  our  ears,  as  a  sort  of  rustic  measure; 
but  it  is  very  unlike  good  Italian  verse.  There  is  a  pretty  stanza  in 

III  (Canello): 

De  drudaria 

Nom  sai  de  re  blasmar 

C'  autrui  paria 

Torn  ieu  en  reirazar ; 

Ges  ab  sa  par 

No  sai  doblar  m'  amia, 

C'  una  non  par 

Que  segunda  noill  sia. 

As  often  happens  with  the  old  Provencal  measures — oftener  than 
with  the  Italian — there  is  an  echo  of  this  in  English  verse : 

Him  perfect  music 
Doth  hush  unto  his  rest, 
And  through  the  pauses 
The  perfect  silence  calms; 
0  poor  the  voices 
Of  earth  from  east  to  west, 
And  poor  earth's  stillness 
Between  her  stately  palms. 

But  it  is  not  Italian ;  and,  further,  if  Dante  had  been  attracted  by  this 
kind  of  verse  he  could  have  found  much  more  in  other  poets ;  there  is 
nothing  here  to  account  for  Dante's  praise. 

It  is  more  to  the  purpose  that  Arnaut  is  distinguished  among  his 
fellows  by  a  curious  violent  emphasis ;  this  comes  out  in  his  harsh  use  of 
monosyllables,  in  his  liking  for  images  of  winter,  in  the  strength  of  his 
protestations.  He  is  the  least  attractive,  at  first,  of  all  the  Provencal 
poets ;  he  has  little  of  the  beauty  that  is  in  Bernart  de  Ventadorn,  and 
he  is  generally  far  away  from  the  delightful  freedom  and  grace  of  the 
earlier  poems,  like  the  Farewell  of  William  of  Poitiers  (Pos  de  chanter 
m'es  pres  talens,  Bartsch,  Chrestomathie,  32)  or  Marcabrun's  A  la  fontana 
del  vergier  (ibid.,  49).  His  emphasis  (sometimes  at  least)  is  equally  far 
from  the  conventional  rhetoric  of  the  troubadours,  and  in  his  power  of 
enforcing  what  he  says  he  is  not  unlike  Dante : 


W.    P.    KER  151 

'  I  pray  my  song  may  not  be  grievous  to  you,  for  if  you  will  welcome 
it,  words  and  tune,  little  recks  Arnaut  whom  it  may  please  or  pain.' 
'  Love  bids  me  not  be  like  the  violet,  that  passes  quickly  long  before  the 
winter  comes,  but  for  the  sake  of  her  love  to  be  laurel  or  juniper.' 

Naturally  one  turns  to  the  poems  quoted  by  Dante  to  find  what  he 
admired  in  them.  That  which  is  quoted  in  Vulg.  Eloq.,  II,  6  :  '  Sols  sui 
qui  sai  lo  sobrafan  quern  sortz,'  is  enough  to  prove  at  any  rate  the 
vehemence  of  Arnaut's  rhetoric.  Take  it  at  the  lowest  valuation — take 
it  as  a  game  of  words  merely — still  there  is  in  it  a  force  of  will,  not 
wholly  unlike  Dante.  He  may  protest  too  much,  but  he  is  not  weak. 
He  seems  to  suspect  that  his  language  may  be  taken  for  pretence,  and 
he  maintains  his  earnestness  : 

'  To  look  on  others  I  am  blind,  and  deaf  to  hear  them ;  without  her 
I  cannot  see  nor  hear,  and  this  I  say  not  in  vain  conceit ' — e  jes  d'  aisso 
noill  sui  fals  plazentiers. 

His  extravagances  of  passionate  language  do  not  go  off  into  the  air — 

To  o'er  top  old  Pelion  or  the  skyish  head 
Of  blue  Olympus — 

but  come  back  to  strengthen  his  imagination,  to  give  weight  to  his 
charge ;  as  in  this  same  poem  later :  '  Though  Rhone  in  all  his  flood  runs 
strong,  that  flood  is  mightier  that  makes  my  heart  a  lake  of  love.'  It 
is  this  habit  of  thought — this  concentration  and  repeated  attack — which 
justifies  the  Sestina  and  makes  it  more  than  a  toy.  It  is,  literally,  an 
involved  sort  of  verse,  in  which  the  involution  and  evolution  are  one — it 
rolls  round  on  itself,  the  extremes  coming  into  the  centre,  and  at  the 
same  time  it  throws  out  new  fringes,  till  the  period  is  complete.  This 
concentration  of  the  Sestina  and  its  repetition  of  the  same  words,  make 
it  the  proper  verse  for  the  melancholy  man — and  that  both  Arnaut  and 
Dante  were  of  this  humour  can  hardly  be  questioned.  It  is  in  the 
Pietra  poems — not  in  the  Sestina  only — that  the  likeness  between  the 
two  poets  is  brought  out.  The  strange  thing  is  that  this  kind  of  love- 
poetry,  in  which  there  is  no  thought  of  Beatrice,  no  vestige  of  Guido 
Guinicelli,  should  be  praised  as  it  is  by  Dante ;  for  there  is  nothing 
more  exalted  to  be  found  in  Arnaut,  and  yet  Arnaut  is  put  forward  (by 
Guido  himself  in  the  Purgatorio)  as  the  chief  poet  of  love,  and  that  very 
shortly  before  the  meeting  of  Dante  and  Beatrice,  very  shortly  after  the 
passage  about  the  '  new  style.'  The  formal  merit  of  Arnaut  will  not 
explain  everything,  though  it  is  part  of  the  explanation.  Dante's  praise 
is  unconditional ;  Arnaut  surpassed  all  others,  all  the  lyric  poets  and  all 
the  romances  of  love.  Dante  is  thinking  of  the  French  romances  in 


152        Dante,  Guido  Guinicelli  and  Arnaut  Daniel 

which  the  Proven9al  lyrig  sentiment  and  grace  were  turned  into 
narrative ;  he  is  thinking  of  Lancelot  and  Guinevere.  The  reference 
to  the  romances  proves  (I  think)  that  however  Dante  may  have  admired 
the  formal  processes  of  Arnaut  (sub  una  oda  continua)  it  was  not  for 
that  reason  only  that  he  preferred  him  here.  You  can  compare  Arnaut 
with  the  authors  of  versi  d'  amore,  if  it  please  you,  in  point  ^of  form.  But 
you  cannot  compare  him  with  prose  di  romanzi  (if  by  those  is  meant  the 
noble  and  joyous  book  of  Lancelot)  except  with  regard  to  the  matter, 
and  the  matter  is  the  doctrine  of  love.  The  formal  motive  is  not 
enough ;  Dante  meant  to  praise  more  in  Arnaut  than  the  pattern  of  his 
stanza ;  and  the  difficulty  remains.  There  is  some  likeness  in  Arnaut 
to  Dante ;  but  nothing  of  the  peculiar  virtue  which  Dante  found  in 
Guido  Guinicelli,  and  reverenced  in  Guido  as  the  source  of  his  own 
poetic  life. 

W.  P.  KER. 
LONDON. 


COURT   PERFORMANCES   UNDER 
JAMES   THE  FIRST. 

IN  The  Modern  Language  Review  for  October,  1906, 1  called  attention 
to  some  neglected  entries  in  the  Declared  Accounts  of  the  Treasurer  of 
the  Chamber,  which  made  it  possible  to  establish  a  more  complete  list 
of  dramatic  performances  at  the  court  of  Elizabeth  than  had  formerly 
been  available.  I  will  now  add  a  few  entries  from  the  same  source 
{Pipe  Rolls,  543  and  544)  for  the  reign  of  James  the  First  up  to  the 
death  of  Shakespeare  in  1616.  The  new  information  which  they  furnish 
is  comparatively  scanty,  inasmuch  as  the  extracts  from  the  Original 
Accounts  already  printed  by  Peter  Cunningham  in  the  Introduction  to 
his  Extracts  from  the  Accounts  of  the  Revels  at  Court  (1842)  are  more 
exhaustive  for  this  period ;  but  they  are  riot  uninteresting,  since  they 
help  in  a  small  way  towards  the  disentangling  of  the  somewhat  compli- 
cated histories  of  the  dramatic  associations  to  which  they  relate,  and,  in 
particular,  of  those  known  generically  as  the  Revels  companies. 

As  before,  I  give,  in  the  case  of  each  performance,  the  name  of  the 
.company,  the  date  of  the  performance  so  far  as  it  can  be  ascertained 
from  the  entry,  and  in  brackets  the  name  of  the  representative  of  the 
company  to  whom  payment  was  made  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber 
upon  a  duly  signed  warrant.  The  earlier  warrants  were  issued,  in 
accordance  with  the  practice  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  by  the  Privy  Council 
as  a  whole  ;  but  in  1615  this  responsibility  was  transferred  to  the  Lord 
Chamberlain.  ^ Plays  at  court  were  not  always  performed  before  the 
King  in  person,  and  it  is  therefore  desirable  to  record  which  members 
of  the  royal  family  were  present  on  each  occasion.  The  entries  are 
scrupulous  as  to  this,  for  the  very  sufficient  reason  that,  if  the  King 
attended,  the  ordinary  fee  of  £6.  13s.  4d.  was  increased  by  a  'reward'  of 
£3.  6s.  8d,  making  a  total  payment  of  £10  for  each  play. 


154         Court  Performances  under  James  the  First 

Feb.  20,  1604  (King).     Children  of  Paul's  (Edward  Pearce). 

Edward  Pearce,  or  Peirs,  who  had  been  a  Gentleman  of  the  Chapel 
since  1588,  resigned  his  place,  upon  appointment  to  the  Mastership  of 
the  Children  of  Paul's,  in  1600  (Rimbault,  Old  Cheque  Book  of  the 
Chapel  Royal,  4,  5).  He  seems  to  have  at  once  revived  the  Paul's 
plays,  which  had  been  'dissolved'  since  1590.  He  had  twice  brought 
the  boys  to  court  during  the  last  reign,  on  January  1,  1601,  and 
January  1,  1603.  It  is  just  possible  that  Salmon  or  Salathiel  Pavy, 
for  whom  Death's  self  was  sorry,  originally  belonged  to  this  company. 
He  is  described  as  '  apprentice  to  one  Peerce '  in  the  bill  of  complaint 
which  records  how  he  and  other  boys  were  pressed  for  the  Chapel  by  an 
abuse  of  the  commission  given  to  Nathaniel  Giles  (Fleay,  History  of  the 
Stage,  128). 

Christmas,  1608-9  (King).  Children  of  the  Blackfriars  (Robert  Keyser).  Two 
plays. 

Jan.  4,  1609  (King).  Children  of  the  Blackfriars  (Robert  Keyser)  'in  the 
Cockpitt  at  Whitehall.' 

This  Cockpit,  which  formed  part  of  the  palace  of  Whitehall,  and 
probably  stood  on  the  site  of  the  present  Treasury  building  at  the 
Westminster  end  of  the  Horse  Guards  Parade,  is  not  to  be  confused 
with  the  theatre  of  that  name,  built  about  1617  in  Drury  Lane.  Prince 
Henry's  Privy  Purse  Accounts  for  1610-12  record  several  payments 
'  for  makinge  readie  the  Cockepitt  for  playes '  (Cunningham,  xni). 

Dec.  26,  1609  (King).     Prince  Henry's  (Edward  Juby). 

Dec.  27,  1609  (King).     Queen's  (Thomas  Greene). 

Dec.  28,  1609  (King).     Prince  Henry's. 

Jan.  7,  1610  (King).     Prince  Henry's. 

Jan.  18,  1610  (King).     Prince  Henry's. 

Christmas,  1609-10  (King,  Queen,  Henry,  Charles,  Elizabeth).  King's  (John 
Heininges).  Thirteen  plays. 

Christmas,  1609-10  (King,  Henry).  Children  of  the  Whitefriars  (Robert 
Keyser).  Five  plays. 

There  were  twenty-four  plays  in  all  this  Christmas.  Mr  Fleay,  who 
explains  (H.  of  S.,  173)  that  there  were  'no  plays  before  the  King 
or  Queen  on  account  of  the  plague,'  is  therefore  a  little  unlucky.' 
The  virulence  of  the  plague  always  subsided  in  the  winter,  and  I  do  not 
know  of  any  year  in  which  it  made  plays  at  court  altogether  impossible. 
The  payments  to  Robert  Keyser,  on  behalf  of  the  Children  of  the 
Blackfriars  in  1608-9  and  the  Children  of  the  Whitefriars  in  1609-10, 
require  special  notice.  Keyser  is  not  a  wholly  new  figure  in  dramatic 


E.    K.    CHAMBERS  155 

annals.  It  was  to  him,  as  '  his  many  waies  endeered  friend,'  that  Walter 
Burre  dedicated  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  The  Knight  of  the  Burning 
Pestle  in  1613,  with  a  preface  in  which  he  relates  how  Keyser  saved 
the  rejected  play  from  '  perpetuall  oblivion,'  and  sent  it  to  him  some  two 
years  before  its  publication.  Dr  H.  S.  Murch,  the  latest  editor  of  The 
Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  tells  us  that  'nothing  is  ascertainable 
regarding  Robert  Keysar '  (Yale  Studies,  xxxni,  106).  Even  apart  from 
the  entries  which  I  am  now  for  the  first  time  making  known,  this  is  not 
strictly  accurate.  The  papers  in  the  Chancery  suits  of  Evans  v.  Kirk- 
ham  and  Kirkham  v.  Painton  and  Others  in  1612  (Fleay,  H.  of  S.,  249) 
include  a  pleading  of  Edward  Kirkham,  in  which  he  describes  the 
profits  which  he  and  his  partners  derived  from  their  interest  in  the 
great  Hall  of  the  Blackfriars,  and  how,  at  a  certain  stage  of  their 
relations  with  the  company  that  performed  there,  '  the  said  Children, 
which  the  said  Evans  in  his  aunswere  aflfirmeth  to  be  the  Queenes 
Cheldren,  were  Masters  themselues,  and  this  complaynante  &  his  said 
partners  receiued  of  them  and  of  one  Kezar,  who  was  interest  wth  them, 
aboue  the  summe  of  one  hundred  and  flfiftye  poundes  per  annum,  onely 
for  the  vse  of  the  said  great  Hall,  wthout  all  manner  of  charges.'  The 
company  referred  to  by  Kirkham  is  no  doubt  that  to  which  the  Treasurer 
of  the  Chamber's  payments  of  1608-9  and  1609-10  were  made.  The 
documents  of  the  lawsuit,  intricate  and  full  of  controversy  as  they  are, 
render  it  possible  to  reconstruct  the  history  of  the  Blackfriars  from 
1600  to  1608  with  fair  certainty.  They  are  absolutely  consistent  with 
such  collateral  information  as  can  be  gleaned  from  the  Blackfriars 
Sharers  Papers  of  1635  (Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines  of  the  Life  of 
Shakespeare,  I,  312)  and  other  sources.  The  Chapel  plays  at  the 
Blackfriars  began  in  1600.  Very  few  writers  are  clear  about  this,  and 
the  date  is  constantly  placed  anywhere  from  1596  onwards.  But  the 
statement  of  the  Burbages  in  the  Sharers  Papers  is  explicit,  that  the 
playhouse  '  was  leased  out  unto  one  Evans  that  first  sett  up  the  boyes 
commonly  called  the  Queenes  Majesties  Children  of  the  Chappell';  and 
Evans  v.  Kirkham  gives  the  date  of  that  lease  as  September  2,  1600. 
There  had  of  course  been  earlier  Chapel  performances,  during  the 
Masterships  of  Richard  Edwards  (1563—1566)  and  William  Hunnis 
(1566—1597).  These  had  ceased,  so  far  as  the  court  was  concerned,  in 
1584  (Modern  Language  Review,  n,  7),  but  the  company  can  be  obscurely 
traced  in  the  country,  at  any  rate  until  1591.  Two  of  their  plays,  Dido 
and  The  Wars  of  Cyrus,  were  published  as  late  as  1594.  On  June  9, 
1597,  Nathaniel  Giles  became  the  Master  of  the  Children  (Rimbault,  5). 


156         Court  Performances  under  James  the  First 

But  there  was  no  immediate  resumption  of  plays.  James  Burbage  had 
bought  the  Blackfriars  premises  from  Sir  William  More  and  had 
adapted  them  for  the  purposes  of  a  theatre  in  the  previous  year ;  but 
the  use  of  the  said  house  for  plays  had  been  forbidden  by  the  Privy 
Council  (Malone  Society  Collections,  I,  91),  and  although  the  difficulty 
was  evaded  by  making  it  a  'private'  house,  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  this  took  place  earlier  than  1600.  It  is  worth  noticing 
that  a  conveyance  by  Sir  George  More  to  Cuthbert  and  Richard 
Burbage  of  some  additional  property  in  the  Blackfriars,  bordering  on 
their  father's  original  purchase,  is  dated  June  26,  1601  (Hist.  MSS. 
Comm.,  vii,  659).  The  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber's  books  record  a 
performance  of  the  Chapel  at  court,  for  the  first  time  since  1584,  on 
January  6, 1601  (Cunningham,  xxxm).  Mr  Fleay  is  of  course  the  will- 
o'-the-wisp  who  has  led  recent  writers  astray.  He  says,  'The  Chapel 
children  had  been  playing  in  public  from  1597  onwards'  (H.  of  S.,  124); 
and  a  little  later,  of  the  Blackfriars,  '  There  is  no  trace  of  any  perform- 
ance there  until  November,  1598,  when  The  Case  is  altered,  by  Jonson 
(his  earliest  play),  was  acted  by  "the  children  of  the  Blackfriars" 
(H.  of  S.,  153).  I  need  not  dwell  upon  the  inconsistency  of  the  two 
dates ;  let  us  come  to  the  evidence.  '  That  witty  Play  of  the  Case  is 
altered '  is  mentioned  in  Nash's  Lenten  Stuff,  which  was  entered  in  the 
Stationers'  Register  on  January  11,  1599,  and  it  must  therefore  have 
existed  in  some  form  by  that  date.  The  Case  is  Altered  was  published, 
in  a  text  bearing  clear  traces  of  revision,  during  1609,  'As  it  hath  beene 
sundry  times  Acted  by  the  Children  of  the  Blacke-friers.'  But  the  fact 
that  the  Children  of  the  Blackfriars  had  acted  the  play  by  1609  is  no 
proof  that  it  was  originally  produced  by  them  in  1598,  even  if  it  could 
be  shown  that  the  name  '  Children  of  the  Blackfriars '  was  in  use  at  all 
at  that  date.  It  may  have  been  produced  by  some  other  company  and 
transferred  to  the  Children  of  the  Blackfriars.  Precisely  this  thing 
happened  to  Chapman's  All  Fools,  which  was  originally  written  for  the 
Admirals  in  1599  and  was  printed  in  1605  as  'presented  at  the  Black 
Fryers '  (Greg,  Henslowes  Diary,  n,  203).  Such  evidence  cannot  stand 
for  a  moment  against  the  clear  proof  from  the  lawsuits  of  1612  and 
1635  that  Evans  first  set  up  the  Chapel  plays  under  the  lease  from  the 
Burbages  of  1600.  And  there  is  no  other  evidence. 

Henry  Evans  financed  the  Chapel  under  some  arrangement  with 
one  James  Robinson  and  with  Nathaniel  Giles,  the  Master.  There  were 
performances  at  Court  during  the  Christmasses  of  1600-1  and  1601-2, 
for  which  Giles  received  payment  from  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber. 


E.    K.    CHAMBERS  157 

Jonson  wrote  Cynthia's  Revels  and  The  Poetaster  for  the '  aery  of  little 
eyases,'  and  they  'berattled  the  common  stages'  with  a  light  heart. 
But  the  enterprise  was  not  a  success.  During  the  first  few  months  the 
syndicate  got  into  trouble  with  the  Star  Chamber  for  an  illegitimate 
use  of  Giles'  commission  in  pressing  children  for  the  company.  Under 
Articles  of  Agreement  dated  April  20,  1602,  Edward  Kirkham,  who,  by 
the  way,  was  Yeoman  of  the  Revels,  and  others  were  brought  in  as 
partners  with  Evans  and  his  son-in-law  Alexander  Hawkins;  but  almost 
immediately  afterwards  there  was  a  quarrel.  According  to  Evans,  he 
was  libelled  by  Kirkham  and  his  friends  to  Lord  Chamberlain  Hunsdon, 
and  had  to  leave  the  country.  The  company  did  not  appear  at  Court 
during  the  Christmas  of  1602-3,  and  the  plague  of  the  following 
summer  hit  the  profits  very  hard.  On  January  31,  1604,  authority  was 
given  for  a  patent,  under  which  the  company  changed  its  name  and 
became  the  Children  of  the  Revels  to  the  Queen.  The  old  name  of 
Children  of  the  Chapel  was  not  wholly  dropped  out  of  popular  use,  but 
it  would  seem  that  the  Master  of  the  Children  ceased  to  be  officially 
concerned  with  the  plays.  When  Nathaniel  Giles'  commission  was 
renewed  in  1626,  a  special  proviso  was  inserted  that  none  of  the 
Children  should  be  employed  in  plays,  '  for  that  it  is  not  fitt  or  desent 
that  such  as  should  sing  the  praises  of  God  Almighty  should  be  trained 
or  imployed  in  such  lascivious  and  profane  exercises'  (Collier,  H.  E.  D.  P., 
1,  446).  The  patentees  for  the  Revels  were  Edward  Kirkham,  Alexander 
Hawkins,  Thomas  Kendall,  and  Robert  Payne.  Samuel  Daniel  was 
appointed  to  license  plays  for  the  Children,  and  no  reservation  seems  to 
have  been  made  for  the  rights  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels.  All  went 
well  for  a  while.  The  company  performed  at  court  on  February  21, 
1604,  and  twice  during  January,  1605.  Payment  was  made  for  the 
former  year  to  Edward  Kirkham  as  '  Mr  of  the  Children  of  the  Queenes 
Maties  Revells,'  and  for  the  latter  to  Samuel  Daniel  and  Henry  Evans. 
Evans,  therefore,  must  have  come  home,  and  resumed  his  share  in  the 
direction.  But  before  long  the  enterprise  fell  upon  troublous  times. 
Misdemeanours,  for  which  Evans  declared  that  Kirkham  was  especially 
responsible,  were  committed  in  the  plays.  The  King  forbade  the  use  of 
the  house  in  future  and  some  of  the  boys  were  sent  to  prison.  These 
facts  are  recorded  in  the  lawsuit  papers,  but  with  no  clear  indication  of 
their  date.  It  is  probable  that  the  summary  account  given  in  the 
pleadings  really  covers  a  series  of  satirical  indiscretions  and  of  conse- 
quent reconstructions  of  the  company,  which  lasted  over  a  period  of 
about  three  years.  The  first  misdemeanour  was  probably  the  production 


158         Court  Performances  under  James  the  First 

of  Daniel's  Philotas  in  1604.  Then  followed  that  of  Eastward  Ho  in 
1605/  which,  as  we  know  from  other  sources,  brought  the  authors, 
Jonson,  Marston  and  Chapman,  into  prison,  and  within  measurable 
distance  of  losing  their  ears.  There  were  no  court  performances  by 
the  company  at  the  Christmas  of  1605-6,  and  Kirkham  appears  as 
payee  for  that  year  on  behalf  of  the  Paul's  boys  (Cunningham,  xxxvm). 
Marston's  Parasitaster  and  Middleton's  Trick  to  Catch  the  Old  One 
seem  to  have  been  originally  produced  at  Blackfriars  and  afterwards 
transferred,  no  doubt  at  this  time,  to  Paul's.  But  the  Paul's  plays 
themselves  cannot  be  traced  beyond  1606,  and  afforded  no  permanent 
scope  for  Kirkham.  It  is  clear,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  Blackfriars 
performances  were  resumed,  and  that  further  misdemeanours  preceded 
the  final  inhibition  referred  to  in  the  lawsuit.  There  is,  indeedX 
definite  evidence  of  at  least  three  more  offending  plays,  before  James' 
patience  was  exhausted.  One  was  Day's  Isle  of  Gulls,  of  which 
Sir  Edward  Hoby,  writing  to  Sir  Thomas  Edmondes  about  events  in 
mid-February,  1606,  says  (Birch,  Court  and  Times  of  James  the  First, 
1,60): 

At  this  time  was  much  speech  of  a  play  in  the  Black  Friars,  where,  in  the 
'  Isle  of  Gulls,'  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  all  men's  parts  were  acted  of  two 
divers  nations  ;  as  I  understand  sundry  were  committed  to  Bridewell. 

The  other  two  are  mentioned  in  a  letter  of  April  8,  or  in  English  style 
March  30,  1608,  from  the  French  ambassador,  M.  De  La  Boderie,  to 
M.  De  Puiseux  at  Paris.  As  this  reference  is  generally  quoted  from  an 
English  translation  of  an  imperfect  German  summary,  frequently  mis- 
dated in  1605,  and  sometimes  ascribed  to  the  wrong  ambassador,  I  give 
it  in  full  from  Ambassades  de  Monsieur  De  La  Boderie  en  Angleterre 
(1750),  ill,  196.  The  original  is  in  R  N.  MS.  fr.  15984. 

Environ  la  mi-Cardme,  des  Comediens  a  qui  j'avois  fait  defendre  de  jouer  1'histoire 
du  Marechal  de  Biron,  voyant  toute  la  Cour  dehors,  ne  laisserent  de  la  faire,  et  non 
seulement  cela,  mais  y  introduiserent  la  Reine  et  Madame  de  Verneuil,  traitant 
celle-ci  fort  mal  de  paroles,  et  lui  donnant  un  soufflet.  En  ayant  eu  avis  de-la  a 
quelques  jours,  aussi-tot  je  m'en  allai  trouver  le  Comte  de  Salisbury,  et  lui  fis  plainte 
de  ce  que  nou  seulement  ces  compagnons-lk  contrevenoient  a  la  defense  qui  leur 
avoit  ete  faite,  mais  y  ajoutoient  des  choses  non  seulement  plus  importantes,  mais 
qui  n'avoient  que  faire  avec  le  Marechal  de  Biron,  et  au  partir  de-la  etoient  toutes 
fausses.  II  se  montra  fort  corrouce,  et  des  1'heure  m§me  envoya  pour  les  prendre. 
Toutefois  il  ne  s'en  trouva  que  trois,  qui  aussi-tot  furent  mene"s  a  la  prison  ou  ils 
sont  encore  ;  mais  le  principal  qui  est  le  compositeur,  echapa.  Un  jour  ou  deux 
avant,  ils  avoient  de"p§che  leur  Roi,  sa  mine  d'Ecosse,  et  tons  ses  Favoris  d'une 
etrange  sorte  ;  car  apre's  lui  avoir  fait  de"piter  le  Ciel  sur  le  vol  d'un  oiseau,  et  fait 
battre  un  Gentilhomme  pour  avoir  rompu  ses  chiens,  ils  le  depeignoient  ivre  pour 
le  moins  une  fois  le  jour.  Ce  qu'ayant  S9U,  je  pensai  qu'il  seroit  assez  en  colere 
coutre  lesdits  Comediens,  sans  que  je  1'y  misse  davantage,  et  qu'il  valoit  mieux 
faire  referer  leur  chatiment  a  1'irreverence  qu'ils  lui  avoient  portee,  qu'a  ce  qu'ils 


E.    K.    CHAMBERS  159 

pourroient  avoir  dit  desdites  Dames  ;  et  pour  ce,  je  me  rdsolus  de  n'en  plus  parler, 
mais  considerer  ce  qu'ils  ont  fait.  Quand  le  Roi  a  e"td  ici,  il  a  te"moigne  £tre 
extr^mement  irrite  contre  ces  marauds-lk,  et  a  commande  qu'ils  soient  chaties,  et 
sur-tout  qu'on  cut  &  faire  diligence  de  trouver  le  compositeur.  M6me  il  a  fait 
defense  que  1'on  n'eut  plus  a  jouer  des  Comedies  dedans  Londres.  Pour  lever  cette 
defense,  quatres  autres  (Jompagnies,  qui  y  sont  encore,  offrent  deja  cent  mille  francs, 
lesquels  pourront  bien  leur  en  ordonner  la  permission ;  mais  pour  le  moins  sera-ce  k 
condition  qu'ils  ne  representeront  plus  aucune  histoire  moderne,  ni  ne  parleront  des 
choses  du  temps  k  peine  de  la  vie.  Si  j'eusse  cru  qu'il  y  eut  de  la  suggestion  en  ce 
qu'avoient  dit  les  Comediens,  j'en  eusse  fait  du  bruit  davantage ;  mais  ayant  tout 
sujet  d'estimer  le  contraire,  j'ai  pense  que  le  meilleur  etoit  de  ne  point  le  remuer 
davantage,  et  laisser  audit  Roi  la  vengeance  de  son  fait.  Toutefois  si  vous  jugez  de 
de-la,  Monsieur,  que  je  n'en  aye  fait  assez,  il  est  encore  temps. 

I  do  not  know  what  the  play  on  James  may  have  been  ;  that  on  Biron 
was  evidently  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Charles  Duke  of 
JByron  (1608,  S.  R.,  June  5,  1608),  which  was  purged  of  its  scandalous 
episode  and  published  as  'acted  at  the  Black-Friers,'  but  without  the 
name  of  a  company.  The  Byron  disaster  brought  about  a  crisis  in  the 
affairs  of  the  Blackfriars.  The  lawsuit  papers  make  it  clear  that  by 
July  26,  1608,  no  plays  were  being  used  at  the  house,  and  that  on  or 
about  that  date  Kirkham  had  the  property  of  the  syndicate  valued 
and  divided  amongst  the  partners,  gave  up  his  commission  under  the 
great  seal,  i.e.,  the  patent  of  1604,  and  discharged  divers  of  the 
partners  and  poets.  Evans  then  considered  the  association  at  an  end, 
and  surrendered  the  lease  of  the  Blackfriars  to  the  Burbages,  who,  as  we 
learn  from  the  Sharers  Papers,  placed  there  men  players,  '  which  were 
Heminges,  Condall,  Shakspeare,  etc.'  Kirkham  challenged  Evans'  right 
to  do  this,  and  so  the  lawsuits  of  1612  arose. 

So  far  as  the  actors  were  concerned,  the  Blackfriars  company  was 
probably  a  continuous  one  from  1600  to  1608;  and  it  seems  to  have 
had  a  remarkable  gift  of  surviving  its  disgraces.  It  was  not,  however, 
included  amongst  the  companies  performing  at  court,  after  its  first 
misdemeanour  of  1605,  and  there  is  reason  for  believing  that,  as  a  result 
of  that  misdemeanour,  it  lost  the  special  patronage  of  the  Queen,  and 
was  thenceforward  known,  not  as  the  Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels, 
but  simply  as  the  Children  of  the  Revels.  The  title-pages  of  two  plays, 
Day's  Isle  of  Gulls  (1606)  and  Sharpham's  The  Fleir  (1607,  S.  E., 
May  13,  1606),  indicate  that  they  were  acted  '  by  the  Children  of  the 
Revels '  and  '  in  the  blacke  Fryars.'  A  third  play,  Day's  Law  Tricks 
(1608,  S.  R,  March  28,  1608),  was  also  'Acted  by  the  Children  of  the 
Revels,'  but  the  Blackfriars  is  not  mentioned.  I  do  not  think  that  we 
have  to  do  with  a  mere  accidental  variation.  The  title-pages  of  all 
other  Blackfriars  plays  published  from  1601  to  1606,  if  they  bear  the 


160         Court  Performances  under  James  the  First 

name  of  a  company  at  all,  bear  that  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel 
(Jonson's  Cynthia  s  Revels,  1601,  and  Poetaster,  1602 ;  Sir  Gyles 
Goosecappe,  1606)  or  that  of  'the  Children  of  her  Maiesties  Revels' 
(Marston's  Dutch  Courtezan,  1605 ;  Chapman,  Jonson,  and  Marston's 
Eastward  Ho,  1605),  or  'the  Children  of  the  Queenes  Maiesties  Revels' 
(Marston's  Parasitaster,  1606),  or  '  her  Maiesties  children '  (Chapman's 
Monsieur  D  Olive,  1606). 

It  is  not  an  unreasonable  conjecture  that  the  change  of  organisation, 
whereby  the  Children,  with  Robert  Keyser  as  '  interest  wth  them,' 
became  '  Masters  themselves,'  was  in  its  turn  due  to  a  later  attempt  to 
escape  the  penalties  of  one  of  their  misdemeanours.  If  it  is  true,  as 
Evans  deposed,  that  Kirkham  was  chiefly  responsible  for  the  wrong- 
doing, it  may  well  have  become  desirable  that  he  should  retire  from  the 
active  management  of  the  company.  It  would  also  seem  that  another 
change  of  name  took  place,  whereby  the  Children  of  the  Revels  became 
the  Children  of  the  Blackfriars.  But  it  is  not  quite  clear  at  what  exact 
point  this  reconstruction  is  to  be  fitted  into  the  history.  It  would  be 
natural  to  place  it  in  the  autumn  of  1608,  on  the  ground  that,  if  Keyser 
had  been  responsible  for  Byron  and  for  the  satire  on  James  in  the 
previous  spring,  he  would  hardly,  even  if  he  was  allowed  to  resume 
playing,  have  been  invited  to  bring  the  Children  to  court,  for  the  first 
time  since  1604-5,  at  the  Christmas  of  1608-9.  But  Kirkham's  reference 
to  Keyser's  company  in  the  course  of  the  lawsuit  certainly  suggests  that 
they  had  been  paying  rent  to  him  and  his  partners  for  the  Blackfriars 
during  a  period  earlier  than  the  wind-up  of  the  association  in  July, 
1608  ;  and  it  is  also  a  possibility  that  the  crisis  which  brought  Keyser 
into  the  management  was  that  due  to  the  production  of  The  Isle  of 
Gulls  in  February,  1606.  This  conjecture  receives  some  support  from 
Keyser's  connection  with  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  for  the 
production  of  which  the  winter  of  1606-7  is  by  far  the  most  probable 
date.  It  is,  of  course,  often  assigned  to  1610-11.  This  is  because, 
after  explaining  in  the  dedicatory  Epistle  that  Keyser  sent  him  the 
play  two  years  before  its  publication  in  1613,  Walter  Burre  proceeds, 
'  Perhaps  it  will  be  thought  to  bee  of  the  race  of  Don  Quixote  :  we  both 
may  confidently  sweare,  it  is  his  elder  aboue  a  yeare.'  Nobody  supposes 
that  The  Knight  is  either  older  than,  or  independent  of,  the  First  Part 
of  the  Spanish  Don  Quijote,  published  in  1605;  and  Burre  has  generally 
been  interpreted  as  referring  to  Thomas  Shelton's  English  translation. 
This  was  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  on  January  19, 1612,  and  if 
it  were  the  date  of  publication  of  which  The  Knight  had  the  advantage 


E.    K.    CHAMBERS  161 

by  a  year,  the  production  of  the  play  would  no  doubt  fall  in  the  winter 
of  1610-11.  But  then  Burre's  boast  would  be  rather  an  idle  one,  for 
Shelton  states  quite  plainly  in  his  preface  that  the  translation  was 
actually  made  '  some  five  or  six  yeares  agoe.'  As  Mr  Fitzmaurice-Kelly 
has  proved  that  it  was  based  upon  the  Brussels  edition  of  1607  it  must 
have  been  made  in  1607-8;  and  if  the  claim  of  priority  for  The  Knight  has 
any  real  meaning,  this  cannot  be  later  than  1606-7.  The  conclusion 
precisely  agrees  with  the  only  other  indication  of  date  in  the  play.  In 
the  sixth  line  of  the  Induction,  the  Citizen  says,  'This  seuen  yeares 
there  hath  beene  playes  at  this  house.'  The  house  can  only  have  been 
the  Blackfriars,  since  the  Whitefriars  is  not  heard  of  until  1608,  and  the 
Blackfriars,  as  already  shown,  was  opened  in  the  winter  of  1600. 

Whether  it  was  in  1606  or  in  1608  that  Keyser's  company  originated, 
they  were  sufficiently  in  favour,  as  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber's 
account  shows,  to  appear  at  court  under  the  name  of  the  Children  of 
the  Blackfriars  during  the  Christmas  of  1608-9.  It  must  have  been 
just  at  this  time  that  the  occupation  of  the  Blackfriars  by  the  King's 
men  left  them  homeless.  And  now  it  is  that  the  Whitefriars  comes  into 
the  story,  since  by  good  fortune  it  was  just  empty  and  available  to 
receive  them.  What  little  is  known  about  the  early  fortunes  of  the 
Whitefriars  is  derived  from  the  records  of  yet  another  law-suit,  that  of 
Androwes  v.  Slater  (N.  8.  8.  Transactions,- 1887-92,  269).  The  house 
was  a  mansion  belonging  to  Lord  Buckhurst,  and  stood  next  to  the 
Revels  Office.  In  March,  1608,  a  lease  of  it  was  held  by  Michael 
Drayton  and  Thomas  Woodford,  who  also  owned  the  books  and  dresses 
of  'the  Children  of  the  revells  there  being';  and  a  partnership  was 
formed  to  run  the  company,  consisting  of  Michael  Drayton,  Lording 
Barry,  George  Androwes,  William  Trevell,  William  Cooke,  Edward 
Sibthorpe,  John  Mason,  and  Martin  Slater.  The  manager  was  to  be 
Martin  Slater,  and  it  was  agreed  that,  '  when  their  pattent  for  playinge 
shalbe  renewed,'  his  name  should  be  joined  in  it  with  Dray  ton's,  to 
enable  him  to  travel  with  the  children  in  times  of  restraint.  Slater 
had  been  a  member  of  the  Admiral's  men  from  1594-7.  He  often 
appears  in  Henslowe's  Diary  under  his  Christian  name  only  (Greg,  II, 
310);  and  therefore  he  may  well  have  been  the  Martin  who  in 
November  1599  was 'travelling  with  Laurence  Fletcher,  afterwards  of 
the  King's  men,  in  Scotland  (Scottish  Papers,  n,  777).  In  1603  he  was 
payee  for  Lord  Hertford's  men  (Modern  Language  Review,  II,  12),  and  in 
1605  he  was  acting  with  Queen  Anne's  men  (Hist.  MSS.,  xi,  3,  26). 
The  enterprise  was  a  failure,  partly  no  doubt  because  of  the  Byron 
M.  L.  R.  iv.  11 


162          Court  Performances  under  James  the  First 

inhibition,  which  extended  to  all  companies,  and  partly  because  the 
plague  rendered  plays  an  impossibility  in  London  from  August  to 
November  of  1608;  and  the  lease  was  forfeited  for  non-payment  of  rent. 
Litigation  followed  in  February  between  Slater  and  Androwes,  who  had 
been  persuaded  to  spend  £300  upon  building  and  other  expenses.  This 
Revels  company,  playing  at  the  Whitefriars  during  1608,  must  clearly 
be  distinct  from  the  boys  who  appeared  at  court  as  the  Children  of  the 
Blackfriars  at  the  end  of  that  year.  It  makes  up,  with  the  King's,  the 
Queen's  and  the  Prince's,  the  sum  of  four  companies  mentioned  by 
M.  De  La  Boderie  as  endeavouring  to  buy  off  the  inhibition,  and  is 
doubtless  to  be  identified  with  the  Children  of  the  King's  Revels,  who 
are  not  known  to  have  performed  at  court  at  all,  but  who  are  recorded 
upon  the  title-pages  of  several  plays  published  between  1607  and  1611. 
These  are  Sharpham's  Cupid's  Whirligig  (1607,  entered  in  the  Stationers' 
Register  on  June  29,  1607),  Middleton's  The  Family  of  Love  (1608, 
S.  R.,  October  12,  1607),  Day's  Humour  Out  of  Breath  (1608,  S.  R., 
April  12,  1608),  Markham's  The  Dumb  Knight  (1608,  S.  R.,  August  6, 
1608),  Armin's  Two  Maids  of  Moreclack  (1609),  Mason's  The  Turk 
(1610,  S.  R.,  March  10,  1609),  and  Barry's  .Ram  Alley  (1611,  S.  R., 
November  9,  1610).  It  will  be  observed  that  the  authors  of  the  two 
plays  which  came  last  to  publication  were  members  of  the  1608  syndi- 
cate, and  are  otherwise  little  known.  I  am  afraid  that  the  sight  of 
their  lucubrations  on  the  boards  was  about  all  they  got  for  their  money. 
The  play-list  also  makes  it  clear  that  the  company  must  have  existed  in 
1607,  and  indeed  the  account  of  the  1608  transactions  implies  as  much. 
The  incidental  reference  in  the  lawsuit  to  '  the  Children  of  the  revells ' 
is  obviously  not  inconsistent  with  their  full  name  having  been  Children 
of  the  King's  Revels ;  but  it  at  least  suggests  that  there  was  no  other 
Revels  company  in  existence,  and  helps  to  confirm  the  inference  that 
Keyser's  boys  did  not  call  themselves  Children  of  the  Revels.  I  do  not 
find  any  reference  to  Drayton's  theatrical  speculation  in  my  friend 
Professor  Elton's  excellent  monograph  upon  the  playwright  and  poet. 
Another  of  the  partners,  Thomas  Woodford,  was  afterwards  interested 
in  the  Red  Bull  theatre  (Fleay,  H.  of  S.,  195).  Mr  Fleay,not  having  the 
Androwes  v.  Slater  documents  before  him,  thinks  that  '  the  Paul's  boys 
ceased  to  act  in  1607,'  that  the  children  of  the  King's  Revels,  who 
succeeded  them,  'were  the  same  company  under  another  name,'  and 
that  they  acted  at  the  Paul's  singing  school  (H.  of  8.,  152,  188,  202, 
206).  It  is  apparent  now  that  they  acted  at  the  Whitefriars;  and 
there  is  really  very  little  to  suggest  a  connection  with  Paul's.  Neither 


E.    K.    CHAMBERS  163 

Kirkham  nor  Pearce  belonged  to  the  1608  syndicate,  and  although 
Middleton  wrote  both  for  Paul's  and  the  King's  Revels,  Middleton, 
Sharpham  and  Day  wrote  for  the  King's  Revels  and  for  the  Blackfriars 
Revels  company.  So  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  which  is  not  far,  it  seems 
more  likely  that  the  King's  Revels  arose  out  of  an  independent  attempt 
in  1606  or  1607  to  capture  the  popularity  of  the  Blackfriars  company 
after  their  disgrace  through  The  Isle  of  Gulls,  in  rivalry  with  Kirkham 
and  Keyser,  who  were  doing  their  best  to  continue  the  company  under 
a  new  name  at  the  Blackfriars  itself.  It  cannot,  by  the  way,  be  shown 
that  the  Paul's  plays  lasted  into  1607.  Their  last  recorded  performance 
was  that  of  Abuses  before  James  and  Christian  of  Denmark  on  July  30, 
1606  (Nichols,  Progresses,  n,  68  ;  iv,  1074).  It  is  true  that  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher's  Woman  Hater  (1607,  S.  R.,  May  20,  1607)  was  published 
as  '  lately  acted  by  the  Children  of  Paules,'  but  '  lately '  hardly  excludes 
a  date  in  1606,  and  the  other  evidence  produced  for  the  production  of 
the  play  in  1607  is  very  thin.  Mr  Fleay  further  states  that  the  King's 
Revels  '  acted  from  1607  to  1609 '  and  that  the  Duke  of  York's  men 
arose  'immediately  after  the  disappearance  of  the  King's  Revels 
Children '  (H.  of  S.,  152, 188).  Androwes  v.  Slater  shows  that  the  King's 
Revels  were  broken  before  February,  1609,  and  the  patent  for  the  Duke 
of  York's  men  is  dated  March  30,  1610  (Shakespeare  Society  Papers,  iv, 
47).  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  had  been  playing  in  the  country 
a  year  or  two  earlier  (Hist.  MSS.,  ix,  1,  248). 

I  return  to  Keyser's  company.  Having  been  Children  of  the 
Blackfriars  at  Christmas  1608-9,  they  must  have  moved  to  the  White- 
friars  when  they  were  dispossessed  by  the  Burbages  in  the  course  of  the 
same  winter,  and  thus  became  Children  of  the  Whitefriars  at  Christmas 
1609-10.  They  remained  at  the  Whitefriars;  but  not  for  long  under 
the  management  of  Keyser.  On  January  4,  1610,  they  were  recon- 
stituted as  '  Children  of  the  Revells  to  the  Queene,'  under  a  new  patent 
granted  through  Sir  Thomas  Monson's  influence  to  Robert  Daborne, 
Phillip  Rosseter,  John  Tarbock,  Richard  Jones  and  Robert  Browne. 
The  acting  manager  was  Phillip  Rosseter,  one  of  the  King's  musicians, 
a  '  lutenist '  who  wrote  some  of  the  music  for  Thomas  Campion's  Book 
of  Airs  (1601)  and  dedicated  it  to  Monson.  Thus  there  was  once  again 
a  Queen's  Revels,  for  the  first  time  since  1605.  I  do  not  here  propose 
to  follow  the  fortunes  of  this  company  further,  but  before  returning  to 
the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber's  accounts,  it  is  perhaps  worth  while  to 
ask  whether  it  is  possible  to  construct  a  list  of  the  plays  which  Keyser 
may  be  supposed  to  have  produced.  I  am  afraid  that  the  answer  is  not 

11—2 


164          Court  Performances  under  James  the  First 

altogether  satisfactory.  The  only  play  published  as  'acted  by  the 
Children  of  the  Blacke-friers '  is  Jonson's  The  Case  is  Altered  (1609, 
S.  R,  January  26,  1609).  This  and  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle 
I  have  already  discussed.  There  are  six  plays  published  from  1608  to 
1613,  whose  title-pages  indicate  that  they  were  played  either  at  the 
Blackfriars,  or  at  the  Whitefriars,  or  at  both  houses,  but  name  no 
company.  These  are  Middleton's  Your  Five  Gallants  (S.  R.,  March  22, 
1608),  Chapman's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of  Charles  Duke  of  Byron 
(1608,  S.  R.,  June  5,  1608),  Mayday  (1611),  Widow's  Tears  (1612,  8.  R., 
April  17,  1612),  and  Revenge  of  Bussy  d'Ambois  (1613,  S.  R.,  April  17, 
1612),  and  Marston's  Insatiate  Countess  (1613).  But  such  a  title-page 
leaves  it  possible  that  the  play,  even  if  it  belongs  to  the  original  Revels 
company  in  one  of  its  many  transformations,  may  be  earlier  or  later 
than  Keyser's  reign,  and  I  have  not  at  present  room  to  examine  other 
evidence.  It  is  worth  noting  that  Your  Five  Gallants  is  assigned  in 
the  Stationers'  Register  to  'the  Children  of  the  Chapel.'  Evidently 
this  name  endured  in  popular  usage  long  after  it  had  ceased  to  have 
any  official  significance.  Even  the  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber  applies  it 
to  Rosseter's  company  as  late  as  1613  (Cunningham,  XLII).  I  think 
Keyser  must  have  produced  Jonson's  Epicoene  as  well  as  The  Case  is 
Altered.  But  the  evidence  is  a  little  puzzling.  The  entry  in  the 
Stationers'  Register  on  September  20,  1610,  names  neither  company 
nor  theatre.  Alleged  editions  of  1609  and  1612  probably  do  not  exist; 
but  Jonson  himself  wrote  in  the  Folio  of  1616,  '  This  Comoedie  was  first 
acted,  in  the  yeere  1609.  By  the  Children  of  her  Maiesties  Re  veils.' 
Now  Prof.  Thorndike  (The  Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on 
Shakspere,  17)  has  sufficiently  proved  that  Jonson  invariably  uses  the 
Circumcision  style  and  not  the  Annunciation  style  in  the  Folio,  and 
that  consequently  '1609'  means  1609  and  not  the  early  part  of  1610. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  name  '  Children  of  her  Majesty's  Revels '  was 
really  first  revived  by  Rosseter,  Jonson  must  have  forgotten  the  fact. 
Epicoene  has  an  actor-list,  which  must  be  held  to  give  us  the  composition 
of  Keyser's  company,  and  probably,  for  the  matter  of  that,  of  Rosseter's 
as  well.  The  '  principall  Comoedians '  were  '  Nat.  Field,  Gil.  Carie, 
Hug.  Attawel,  loh.  Smith,  Will.  Barksted,  Will.  Pen,  Ric.  Allin,  loh. 
Blaney.'  Field  had  of  course  been  an  original  member  of  the  Chapel 
Children  in  1600.  With  Jonson,  Chapman  and  Beaumont,  Field 
contributed  verses  to  Fletcher's  Faithful  Shepherdess,  which  was  printed 
without  date,  but  almost  certainly  before  May,  1610.  The  play,  stated 
by  Jonson  in  1618  or  early  in  1619  to  have  been  written  '  ten  years 


E.    K.    CHAMBERS  165 

since '  (Conversations  with  Drummond,  17)  may  reasonably  be  assigned 
to  Keyser.  I  will  now  conclude  this  long  excursus  with  a  chronological 
summary  of  what  I  conceive  to  have  been  the  succession  of  the  events 
with  which  it  deals.  It  is,  of  course,  nothing  but  an  hypothesis  which 
the  discovery  of  further  material  may  very  likely  destroy. 

Summer  1600.     Children  of  Paul's  begin  plays  under  Edward  Pearce. 
Autumn  1600.     Children   of    the   Chapel   begin   plays   under   Henry 

Evans. 
April  1602.     Edward  Kirkham  and  others  enter  into  partnership  with 

Evans. 
January  1604.     Children  of  the  Chapel  become  Children  of  the  Queen's 

Revels.     They  are  soon  in  disgrace  for  Philotas. 
1605.     Queen's  Revels  are  in  disgrace  for  Eastward  Ho  and  lose  royal 

patronage.     Kirkham  transfers  his  services  to  Paul's,  but  continues 

Blackfriars  company  as  Children  of  the  Revels. 
February  1606.     Revels  are  in  disgrace  for  Isle  of  Gulls.     Kirkham 

transfers  management  of  his  boys  to  Keyser,  who  conducts  them 

as  the  Children  of  Blackfriars. 
Autumn  1606.     Paul's  plays  end. 

1607.     Children  of  King's  Revels  are  established  at  Whitefriars. 
March  1608.     Children  of  Blackfriars  are  in  disgrace  for  Byron.     They 

resume  playing  in  the  winter,  but  meanwhile  Evans  surrenders 

Blackfriars  lease  to  the  Burbages,  who  place  the  King's  men  there. 

The  King's  Revels  fail. 
1609.     Keyser's   company  move  house  and  become  Children   of  the 

Whitefriars. 
January  1610.     Rosseter  takes  over  Children  of  the   Whitefriars  as 

Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels. 

The  Treasurer  of  the  Chamber  is  now  resumed. 

Christmas  1614-5  (Charles).  Prince  Charles'  (William  Rowley).  Six  plays. 
For  this  year,  the  dates  of  the  warrants  (April  and  May,  1615)  are 
the  only  indications  of  the  period  within  which  the  performances  fell. 
Mr  Fleay  (H.  of  8.,  188,  262)  says  that  about  April  1614  Prinde 
Charles'  men  '  were  amalgamated  with  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  men  under 
Henslow  at  the  Hope,'  and  Mr  Greg  (Henslowe's  Diary,  II,  138) 
substantially  adopts  the  same  view.  I  think  that  this  payment,  when 
taken  with  that  for  the  same  year  to  Nathan  Field  on  behalf  of  the 
Lady  Elizabeth's  men  (Cunningham,  XLIV),  tends  to  discredit  it.  so  far 
as  1614-5  is  concerned. 


166          Court  Performances  under  James  the  First 

Christmas  1614-5  (King).     Queen's  (Robert  Leigh).     Three  plays. 

Christmas  1614-5  (King,  Charles).     Palsgrave's  (Edward  Juby).     Three  plays. 

The  Elector  had  taken  over  the  patronage  of  Prince  Henry's  men,  after 
the  death  of  the  latter  on  November  7,  1612. 

Christmas  1614-5  (King).     King's  (Heminges).     Eight  plays. 

Cunningham  (XLII)  misdates  the  warrant  on  May  19,  1613,  instead 
of  1615.  There  were,  therefore,  only  twenty  plays  by  the  King's  men 
in  1612-3,  not  twenty-eight. 

Nov.  1,  1615— April  1,  1616  (King  and  Queen).     King's   (Heminges).     Eight 
plays. 

Christmas  1615-6  (King).     Queen's  (Robert  Lee).     Four  plays. 

Christmas  1615-6  (Charles).     Prince  Charles'  (Alexander  Foster).     Four  plays. 

The  warrants  for  the  Queen's  and  Prince's  men  are  dated  in  April 
and  May  1616.  The  appearance  of  Alexander  Foster,  who  belonged  to  the 
Lady  Elizabeth's  men  in  1611-3,  as  payee  for  Prince  Charles',  renders 
it  possible  that  the  amalgamation  assumed  by  Mr  Fleay  and  Mr  Greg 
had  actually  taken  place  for  1615-6.  When  Rosseter  obtained  authority 
to  build  a  new  playhouse  at  Porter's  "Hall  in  the  Blackfriars  on  May  31, 
1615,  it  was  contemplated  that  both  the  Prince's  players  and  the  Lady 
Elizabeth's  players  would  use  the  house,  as  well  as  the  Children  of  the 
Revels;  and  in  fact  Field's  Amends  for  Ladies  (1618)  was  'acted  at 
the  Blacke-Fryers,  both  by  the  Princes  Servants,  and  the  Lady 
Elizabeths.'  This,  however,  suggests  alternate,  rather  than  joint 
playing.  On  March  20,  1616,  the  Prince's  men  were  certainly  treating 
with  Alleyn  as  a  distinct  company  (Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  90);  and 
Alexander  Foster  was  not  a  member. 

E.  K.  CHAMBERS. 

LONDON. 


MAELOWE   AT   CAMBRIDGE. 

IN  spite  of  the  investigations  and  happy  speculations  of  the  Rev.  Dr 
H.  P.  Stokes — the  fruits  of  which  are  mostly  to  be  found  in  his  History 
of  Corpus  Christi  College  (1898)  and  in  Mr  John  H.  Ingram's  interesting 
if  hardly  judicial  book  Christopher  Marlowe  and  his  Associates  (1904) — 
a  good  deal  of  obscurity  has  continued  to  hang  over  the  years  of  Mar- 
lowe's life  at  Cambridge.  When  did  he  come  up  ?  was  he  a  scholar  of 
his  College,  and  if  so,  on  what  foundation  ?  how  regularly  and  how  long 
did  he  reside  ?  who  were  his  chamber-fellows  ? — some  of  these  questions 
at  any  rate  have  not  yet  been  definitely  answered.  I  propose  to  answer 
them  in  this  paper,  based  on  a  close  examination  of  the  accounts  of 
Corpus  Christi  College  kindly  allowed  me  by  the  Bursar,  Mr  A.  J. 
Wallis,  to  whom  I  here  desire  to  express  my  obligations. 

The  first  certain  date  in  connexion  with  Marlowe's  residence  at 
Cambridge  is  that  of  his  matriculation  as  a  member  of  the  University. 
In  the  list  of  matriculations  preserved  in  the  University  Registry, 
under  the  date  March  17,  1580-1,  and  in  the  column  headed  'con- 
victus  secundus '  (i.e.,  the  list  of  students  matriculated  neither  as  fellow- 
commoners  nor  sizars),  appears  the  entry  '  Coll.  corp.  xr.  Chrof.  Marlen.' 

How  long  before  this  had  Marlowe  been  in  residence  at  his  college  ? 

From  the  fact  that  he  took  his  bachelor's  degree  in  March  1583-4 
one  would  expect  him  to  have  come  up  to  Cambridge  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Michaelmas  Term  of  1580.  He  would  then  have  fulfilled,  if  not 
the  twelve  terms  prescribed  by  statute  before  admission  to  the  B.A. 
degree,  at  least  the  ten  terms  plus  a  part  of  a  term  which  was  accepted 
as  a  sufficient  substitute.  I  believe  however  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
he  came  up  to  Cambridge  early  in  the  term  after  Christmas.  A  MS. 
called  the  'Registrum  Parvum'  (now  bound  with  the  oldest  College  Order 
book  or  'Liber  Actorum')  gives  a  list  of  students  admitted  to  the 
College  as  pensioners  ('  Pencionarij  in  scholarium  comeatu '),  and  in 
this  list  the  name  '  Marlin '  (as  will  be  seen  from  the  facsimile  given  by 
Mr  Ingram,  p.  56)  occurs  last  but  one  among  those  admitted  in  the 


168  Marlowe  at  Cambridge 

year  1580,  i.e.,  before  March  25,  1580-1.  This  gives  a  presumption 
that  the  admission  took  place  in  the  Lent  Term.  Further,  as  Mr 
Ingram  mentions,  a  regulation  had  been  made  in  1579  obliging  students 
to  matriculate  within  a  month  of  entering  a  College,  and  it  is  to  be 
presumed  that,  at  a  date  so  soon  after,  this  regulation  was  more  or  less 
literally  observed1.  Lastly,  as  we  shall  see,  Marlowe  though  not  yet 
formally  elected  a  scholar  received  12s.  this  quarter  from  the  scholar- 
ship which  he  held  afterwards — and  this  implies  that  he  had  resided 
twelve  weeks  before  March  25.  I  conclude  therefore  that  he  came 
into  residence  not  long  after  Christmas  1580 :  and  that  his  loss  of  the 
previous  term  was  somehow  condoned  when  he  came  to  take  his  degree. 

For  his  first  term  then,  Marlowe  was  a  pensioner  of  his  College,  but 
drawing  the  allowance  granted  to  a  scholar.  He  had  evidently  come 
up  with  a  nomination  to  a  scholarship  and  had  only  to  wait  to  be 
formally  admitted.  The  date  of  this  ceremony  is  given  us  in  another 
entry  in  the  '  Registrum  Parvum,'  under  the  heading  '  Nomina  Scholas- 
ticorum.'  This  entry  has  hitherto,  I  think,  been  overlooked2 :  '  1581. 
Maii  7.  Marlin  electus  et  admissus  in  locum  dni  Pashley3.' 

On  admission  to  a  scholarship  a  student  paid  a  fixed  fee  to  the 
College.  We  accordingly  find  in  the  College  Accounts4  for  the  year 
ending  Michaelmas  1581  in  a  list  of  payments  '  Pro  introitu  in  Con- 
victum  mn  et  socior.  et  scholarium '  the  entry  '  Marlin  iij8  iiijd5.' 

What  was  the  scholarship  which  had  been  held  by  Pashley  and  to 
which  Marlowe  succeeded  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  gave  me  some 
trouble,  and  to  save  trouble  to  others,  I  will  go  into  the  facts  a  little 
closely.  If  I  say  more  than  is  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  elucidating 
the  life  of  Marlowe,  I  hope  it  will  be  taken  as  a  small  contribution  to 
College  history. 

In  the  year  1560  the  only  scholarships  tenable  at  Corpus  Christi 
College  were  six  which  had  been  founded  in  1548  'ex  benevolentia 
mri  et  sociorum.'  Each  scholar,  says  Masters6,  'was  to  have  after 

1  Dr  Stokes  used  these  arguments  to  enforce  the  same  conclusion  in  a  letter  to  the 
AthentBiim,  Sept.  1,  1894.  The  regulation  referred  to  is  printed  in  Heywood  and  Wright's 
University  Transactions,  i,  222. 

1  Dr  Stokes  in  his  History  of  C.  C.  C. ,  p.  84,  speaks  of  Marlowe's  going  to  Cambridge 
'  perhaps  as  the  first  holder  of  the  Canterbury  scholarship  which  John  Parker  had  just 
founded  in  the  name  of  his  late  father,  the  Archbishop.' 

3  Christopher  Pashley  (or  Pashlie)  matriculated  as  pensioner  of  Corpus  June  15,  1575, 
B.A.  157f,  M.A.  1582. 

4  The  College  Accounts   referred  to  in  this  paper  are  found  in  a  volume  labelled 
'Audits  etc.  1575-1590.' 

5  Pensioners,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  same  list,  paid  an  admission  fee  of  xiid.     As 
Marlowe  never  paid  this,  it  is  clear  that  he  was  regarded  from  the  beginning  as  virtually 
a  scholar. 

•  History  of  C.  C.  C.  (1753),  p.  200. 


G.    C.    MOORE   SMITH  169 

the  rate  of  8d.  per  week  for  commons,  a  small  allowance  per  ann.  for 
Landress  and  Barber,  together  with  a  Chamber  and  his  Reading  in  the 
Hall  free.'  The  weekly  sum  allowed  for  commons  was  subsequently 
augmented  successively  to  lOd.  and  I2d. 

Some  years  later  Archbishop  Parker  founded  an  additional  scholar- 
ship partly  out  of  the  effects  of  John  Mere,  of  whose  will  he  was  a 
supervisor,  partly  from  the  voluntary  contributions  of  himself  and 
others1.  The  first  mention  of  this  scholarship  in  the  College  Accounts 
occurs  in  those  of  the  year  ending  Michaelmas  15652. 

In  1567,  by  an  indenture  dated  June  24,  Parker  founded  three 
scholarships  the  holders  of  which  were  to  be  nominated  by  the  Mayor 
and  Aldermen  of  Norwich  and  to  be  called  '  Norwich  scholars.'  These 
scholarships  seem  to  have  been  first  held  in  the  year  1567-1568,  as  the 
accounts  of  that'  year  show  a  leap  in  the  sum  spent  on  scholars  from 
xi1  ii8  to  xxiij11  xii8  xid.  This  is  however  perhaps  partly  to  be  accounted 
for  by  a  rise  in  the  weekly  allowance  for  commons. 

The  accounts  of  the  next  year  show  a  further  rise  in  the  sum 
devoted  to  scholarships,  which  now  amounts  to  xlh  xjs  vjd.  This  is 
owing  to  fresh  foundations  made  by  Parker.  By  an  indenture  of  May 
31,  15693,  he  established  three  'Canterbury  scholars'  to  be  nominated 
by  the  Dean  and  Chapter  out  of  Canterbury  School — the  money  for  the 
maintenance  of  these  scholars  coming  from  some  tenements  in  West- 
minster. By  one  of  May  22  he  founded  two  more  scholarships  from  the 
revenues  of  the  Hospital  of  Eastbridge,  Canterbury.  By  one  of  August  6 
he  founded  two  additional  Norwich  scholarships — the  holders  to  be 
nominated  by  the  Dean  and  Chapter  from  the  schools  of  Norwich, 
Wyfriondham  and  Aylsham.  The  Eastbridge  scholars  were  at  first 
coupled  in  the  College  Accounts  with  the  three  Canterbury  scholars. 
Thus  in  this  year,  1569,  we  have  the  entry 

'  Et  in  denar.  solut.  pro  comiwabus  quinqwe 
Scholasticorwm  Norwic.  et  quinqwe  aliorum 
Scholasticomm  Cantuar.  partim  ex  reddit. 
Westmon.  et  Estbrige  iuxto  xiid> 

The  weekly  sum  paid  to  each  scholar  has  now  risen,  as  we  see,  to 
12d.  The  accounts  of  this  year  give  the  names  of  the  five  Norwich 
scholars  (Pickering,  Golde,  Leeds,  Bradley,  Fowler)  and  of  the  five 

1  Masters,  ibid.,  p.  85. 

2  Masters'  date  (p.  200)  must  be  incorrect,  whether  he  means  that  Mere  was  '  Bedle ' 
in  1569  or  that  the  scholarship  was  founded  in  that  year. 

3  Strype,  Life  of  Parker,  p.  290. 


170  Marlowe  at  Cambridge 

Canterbury  and  Eastbridge  scholars  (Scott,  Thacster,  Braine,  Cotton, 
Nychols). 

Things  remained  at  this  point  till  the  year  1575  when  the  College 
Accounts  show  that  Parker  had  founded  three  more  scholarships.  The 
different  groups  of  scholars  (apart  from  those  on  the  foundation  of  the 
Master  and  Fellows  or  on  that  of  Mr  Mere)  are  now  divided  into 

5  Norwich  scholars. 

5  'ex  redditibus  Westmonasterij  et  partim  ex  redditibus  de  Estbrige1.' 

3  ex  fundacione  Matthei  Archiepiscopi  C&ntuariensis  '  iuxta  xiid  in 
septimana  pro  rata  residentise  cuiusque  eorum  in  Colle^'o'  (Thexton, 
Poynter,  Pashley). 

What  do  we  know  of  this  last  foundation  ? 

Archbishop  Parker  had  died  on  May  17  of  this  year,  1575.  In 
his  will  made  on  April  5  preceding2  he  had  provided  for  the  creation  of 
three  more  scholarships.  Clause  16  runs  as  follows : 

'  Item  volo  quod  Executores  mei  paratum  reddant  cubiculum  in  eo 
collegio  (sc.  Corporis  Christi)  jam  vocatum  A  Storehouse,  pro  tribus  aliis 
meis  scholasticis  inhabitandis,  pro  quibus  singulis  volo  tres  libras  &  sex 
solidos  octoque  denarios  per  annum  dari,  juxta  formam  quam  Executores 
mei  scripto  suo  praescribent.  Quorum  Scholasticorum  primum  electum 
volo  per  successores  meos  in  Schola  Cantuar.  &  in  ea  urbe  oriundum : 
Secundum  electum  volo  e  Schola  de  Aylesham :  &  tertium  e  Schola  de 
Wymondham :  In  hiis  duabus  villis  oriundos3.' 

Strype  tells  us  that  the  Archbishop's  purpose  was  carried  out  'per 
chartam  7°  Augusti  20  Q.  Eliz.  [i.e.,  1578] ' — while  Masters4  seems  to 
imply  that  nothing  was  done  till  1580  when  the  Archbishop's  son,  John 
Parker,  Esq.,  founded  three  scholarships  in  accordance  with  his  father's 
will,  but  reserved  the  nomination  of  the  scholars  to  himself  during  his 
life.  But  the  College  Accounts  seem  to  prove  that  the  scholarships  had 
been  created  immediately  after  the  Archbishop's  death.  While  the 
three  scholarships  which  we  find  entering  into  the  accounts  of  Michael- 
mas 1575  correspond  exactly  to  those  established  by  the  will,  the 
accounts  of  the  years  from  1576  to  1590  show  no  trace  of  any  fresh 

1  In  1580  and  subsequent  years  these  are  made  into  two  groups,  one  '  fundat.  per 
reddit.   ex    hospital!   Eastbridge   (2),'   the  other    'fundat.   ex   reddit.    teneme/itorum   in 
Westmonasterio  (3).' 

2  The  will  is  printed  by  Strype,  ibid.,  Appendix,  p.  188. 

3  Strype,  Appendix,  p.  191,  gives  'A  list  of  bequests...  paid  for  the  said  Archbishop ' 
from  the  MSS.  of  Rev.  N.  Battely.     Here  we  find  '  To  Bennet  College  for  three   Scholars 
£200.'     Unfortunately  the  list  is  not  dated. 

4  p.  202. 


G.    C.    MOORE    SMITH  171 

foundation  except  one  created  by  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon  in  1577,  for  which 
payments  first  appear  in  the  accounts  of  Michaelmas  1578. 

In  the  accounts  of  the  year  1575-1576  and  in  those  of  subsequent 
years  the  three  scholars  of  Parker's  last  foundation  are  grouped,  not 
with  the  Canterbury  scholars,  as  might  have  been  expected,  but  with 
the  five  Norwich  scholars.  Under  the  heading  'pro  stipendio  octo 
scholasticorwm  ex  fundacione  Matth.  Cantuarien.'  occur  eight  names, 
Goold,  Goldinge,  Plumb,  Abse,  Dix,  Thextone,  Poynter,  Pashley.  The 
first  five  we  know  from  previous  records  to  have  been  the  Norwich 
scholars,  the  last  three  are  the  scholars  of  the  last  foundation. 

This  grouping  was  preserved  till  the  year  1590,  at  any  rate. 

We  may  now  keep  our  eyes  on  the  scholars  of  the  last  foundation. 
All  of  them  appear  with  the  prefix  '  D.'  (Dominus,  the  title  of  a  B.A.)  in 
the  fourth  quarter  of  1578-1579,  Lewgar  replaces  D.  Poynter  in  the  third 
quarter  of  1579-80  (he  had  been  admitted  to  the  scholarship  on  April  12, 
15801),  and  'Marlin'2  replaces  D.  Pashley  in  the  second  quarter  of  the 
year  1580-1581.  His  name  had  even  appeared  in  the  list  of  scholars 
for  the  first  quarter  of  that  year,  but  this  had  apparently  been  an  error. 
In  that  quarter  the  name  is  crossed  out,  and  '  Pashlye '  written  above. 

Marlowe  then,  though  perhaps  rightly  called  a  '  Canterbury  scholar,' 
was  not  one  of  the  earlier  foundation.  He  came  under  the  provisions 
of  the  scholarships  founded  by  Archbishop 'Parker's  will,  and  evidently 
held  that  scholarship  which  was  reserved  for  a  native  of  Canterbury 
educated  there  in  the  Free  School.  He  was  probably  nominated  to  the 
scholarship  by  Mr  John  Parker,  the  Archbishop's  son.  1  have  not  seen 
the  '  charta '  referred  to  by  Strype3  nor  any  other  documents  describing 
the  qualifications  which  Parker  demanded  in  these  scholars  and  the 
advantages  conferred  on  them.  I  must  be  content  therefore  to  follow 
Masters  who  tells  us  that  the  qualifications  demanded  of  the  scholars 
of  the  last  foundation  as  well  as  the  allowances  and  residence  prescribed 
for  them  were  much  the  same  as  those  of  the  Norwich  scholars.  The 
latter,  as  we  hear,  were  to  be  born  of  honest  parents,  and  to  be  chosen 
between  the  ages  of  14  and  20,  being  first  well  instructed  in  grammar, 
able  to  write  and  sing,  and  if  it  might  be  to  make  a  verse.  They  were 
to  enjoy  their  exhibitions  for  six  years,  if  they  should  be  disposed  to 
enter  into  holy  orders,  otherwise  no  longer  than  three.  Upon  their 
admission  the  College  was  to  provide  chambers  for  them  and  make 
them  the  like  allowance  as  to  other  scholars.  No  scholar  was  to  be 

1  College  Order  Book. 

2  His  admission  through  some  neglect  was  not  recorded  in  the  Order  Book. 

3  See  preceding  page. 


172  Marlowe  at  Cambridge 

absent  more  than  a  month  in  the  year,  and  that  with  leave,  and  what- 
ever profits  arose  from  vacancies,  were  to  be  employed  upon  napery  and 
necessaries  for  their  table. 

Strype  adds1:  'For  the  more  Convenience  and  Benefit  of  the 
Scholars  founded  by  him,  [Parker]  afterwards  Anno  1574  allotted  them 
Chambers  in  the  College,  and  procured  them  several  Books  to  be  used 
in  common  by  them  in  their  studies.  The  Chambers  were  on  the  East 
side  of  the  College  for  three  of  which  (if  no  more)  the  Archbishop 
provided  Implements,  viz.  Beds  Mattresses  Bolsters  and  Coverlids  of 
Tapistry  Chairs  and  Tables,  that  is,  one  of  each  sort  belonging  to  each 
Chamber,  which  cost  him  Ten  Pound  Eight  Shillings.  The  Books  which 
were  for  the  common  use  of  all  the  six2  Norwich  Scholars  were  chained, 
and  remained  within  the  Under-Chamber  of  the  Tenth  Chamber  on  the 
East  side.  And  they  were  these : 

Textus  Bibliae  cum  Gloss.  Lyra  in  quatuor  Voluminibus. 

Novum  Testamentum  Grsecum,  cum  Versionibus  Vulgat.  &  Erasmi. 

Paraphrasis  Erasmi  Super  Novum  Testament,  in  duobus  Voluminibus 
Latine. 

Concordantiae  Bibliorum. 

Lexicon  Grseco-Latinum,  recognitum  An.  1562. 

Thesaurus  Linguae  Roman.  &  Britannic,  per  Thorn.  Cooper  Anno 
1565. 

Thesaurus  Linguae  Latin,  in  tribus  Voluminib.  recognit.  Anno  1561. 

Lexicon  Latino-Grace.     Anno  1554. 

Historia  Antiquitat.  Cantabrigiae.     Anno  1574.' 

As  we  do  not  know  more  definitely  the  conditions  laid  down  by 
Parker  for  his  new  scholars,  we  must  assume  with  a  certain  reservation 
that  the  above  conditions  applied  to  them.  We  do  know  that  while  the 
Norwich  scholars  were  to  occupy  the  three  ground-floor  chambers  on 
the  east  side  of  the  quadrangle  (the  present  Old  Court),  the  new 
scholars  were  to  reside  in  a  chamber  previously  called  the  Storehouse, 
that  is,  the  ground-floor  room  at  the  north-west  angle  of  that  court, 
marked  A  in  the  plan  in  Willis  and  Clark's  Architectural  History, 
vol.  IV3.  That  then  is  where  Marlowe  must  have  taken  up  his  abode 
with  his  chamber  fellows  Thexton4  and  Leugar5. 

1  p.  291. 

2  Strype  includes  in  the  six  a  Bible-clerk. 

3  This  is  clear  from  Josselin's  Historiola,  ed.  Clark,  1880,  p.  24. 

4  Robert  Thexton  or  Thexston  matriculated  as  pensioner  of  Corpus  June  15,  1575, 
B.A.  157f ,  M.A.  1582.     Probably  son  of  the  vicar  of  Aylsham  (Masters'  List,  p.  48). 

8  Thomas  Leugar,  B.A.  158f ,  M.A.  1587.     There  is  no  record  of  his  matriculation. 


G.    C.    MOORE    SMITH 


173 


We  have  seen  that  every  scholar  was  to  receive  xiid  a  week,  but  it 
was  '  pro  rata  residentiee  cuiusque  eorum  in  collegio.'  Hence  if  we  know 
what  sum  a  scholar  received  in  any  given  quarter,  we  know  for  what 
proportion  of  that  quarter  he  had  been  in  residence.  He  could  only 
receive  13s — (in  the  fourth  quarter,  for  some  reason,  14s  seems  to  have 
been  the  maximum) — if  resident  for  all  his  weeks.  If  he  received  less 
than  this,  we  know  that  his  residence  had  been  short  in  proportion. 
Marlowe  was  credited  with  his  scholarship  from  the  second  quarter  (the 
Lent  Term)  of  1580-1581  to  the  second  quarter  of  1587  (inclusive).  For 
all  these  years,  except  for  the  year  1585-1586,  the  College  Accounts 
are  preserved,  and  register  the  payments  made  to  him.  Accordingly  we 
obtain  a  most  interesting  knowledge  of  the  extent  of  his  residence. 

I  now  give  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  three  scholars  of  Parker's  last 
foundation  during  Marlowe's  time. 

1580-1581    in  2a  Trimestri  3a  Trim.  4a  Trim. 

D8  Thexton  xiij8  D8  Thexton  xiij8  D8  Thexton  x8 

Leugar  xiij8  Leugar  xiij8  Leugar  iij8 

Marlin  xii8  Marlen  xiij8  Marlen  xij8 

Accordingly,  if  our  data  are  correct,  Marlowe  had  resided  in  College 
from  the  beginning  of  bhe  year  to  Michaelmas  with  the  exception  of 
one  week  or  perhaps  two  in  the  last  quarter.  (In  that  quarter  some 
other  scholars  receive  xiiij8.) 


-1582    in  la  Trim. 

2a  Trim. 

3a  Trim. 

4a  Trim. 

D8  Thexton  xii8 

Lewger  xiij8 
Marlin  xiij8 

D8  Thexton  \     ... 
Mondey1  J 
Lewger  xiij8 
Marlin  xiij8 

Mondey  ii8 

Lewger  viij8 
Marlin  xiij8 

Monday  xiiij1 

Lewger  ii8 
Marlin  vij8 

In  this  year  Marlowe  seems  to  have  resided  continuously  from 
Michaelmas  to  the  following  summer  and  then  have  absented  himself 
for  six  or  seven  weeks. 

1582-1583    in  la  Trim. 
Munday  xij8 
Lawgar  iiij8 
Malyn  xij8 

1  The  '  Eegistrum  Parvum  '  has  the  entry  '  Mali  11.  Monday  electus  et  admissus  in 
locum  dni  Thexton.'  The  date  is  1581,  but  probably  1582  is  meant.  In  this  case  Monday 
like  Marlowe  drew  his  allowance  before  being  formally  admitted  to  his  scholarship. 
D8  Thexton  had  been  admitted  a  Fellow  on  February  5  (College  Order  Book).  Monday 
is  not  the  John  Munday  who  was  Senior  Fellow  of  C.  C.  C.  in  1626  and  whose 
election  to  the  Mastership  was  quashed,  but  Thomas  Monday,  matriculated  as  Sizar  of 
Corpus  March  1,  15£$,  B.A.  1583.  He  had  perhaps  been  Marlowe's  schoolfellow  at 
Canterbury  (Ingram  p.  38).  One  would  have  expected  him  to  come  from  Aylsham  or 
Wymondham,  but  perhaps  no  candidate  was  forthcoming  from  one  of  these  schools. 


2a  Trim. 
Munday  xj8 
Lewger  xiij8 
Marlin  xiij8 

3a  Trim. 
Munday  iij8 
Lewgar  ix8 
Marlin  vj8 

4a  Trim. 
Munday  xi8  vjd 
Lawgar  xi8 
Marlin  xiiij8 

174  Marlowe  at  Cambridge 

Here  Marlowe  breaks  his  year's  residence  for  seven  weeks  between 
Lady  Day  and  Midsummer. 

1583-1584    in  la  Trim.  2a  Trim.  3a  Trim.  4a  Trim. 

D  Munday  xij8  D  Monday  x8  D  Monday  iii8  Cokman 1  iiij8 

D  Lewgar  xij8  D  Lewgar  viij8  D  Lewgar  viij8  D  Lewgar  xiij8 

D  Marlyn  xij8  D  Marlin  xiijs  D  Marly n  xiij8  D  Marlin  xj8  vid 

Here  Marlowe  can  only  have  been  absent  for  a  week  or  so  in  the 
first  quarter,  perhaps  towards  Christmas,  and  for  a  fortnight  in  the 
summer. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  he  receives  the  prefix  denoting  the  B.A. 
degree  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  year.  This  is  a  natural  mistake,  or 
anachronism,  on  the  part  of  a  bursar  making  up  his  accounts  at  the 
following  Michaelmas.  As  a  matter  of  fact  Marlowe  only  became  B.A. 
at  the  end  of  the  second  quarter  of  this  year.  The  'supplicat'  preserved 
in  the  University  Registry  runs  as  follows — (where  words  are  included 
in  square  brackets  part  of  the  original  document  has  been  cut  away): 

'  Supplicat  Christopherus  Marlin  ut  d[uodecim  ?]  termini  completi 
in  quibus  ordinarias  lectiones  audiuit  (lice[t  non  omnino]  secundum 
formam  Statuti)  una  cum  omnibus  oppositionibus  r[esponsionibus] 
costerisque  exercitijs  per  statuta  regia  requisitis  sufficiant  ei  [ad  respon]- 
dendum  quaestioni. 

Thomas  Harris  pr[aelector].' 

Mr  Ingram  gives  a  facsimile  of  the  page  of  the  University  Grace- 
Book  of  the  same  date  which  shows  '  Marley '.  in  the  order  of  his 
seniority. 

To  return  to  the  scholarship  payments.  The  next  record  is  as 
follows : 

1584-1585 

in  la  Trim.  2a  Trim.  3a  Trim.  4a  Trim. 

D8  Lewgar  D8  Lewgar  D8  Lewgar  D8  Lewgar 

D8  Marlin  iij8  D8  Marlin  vij8  vjd  D8  Marlin  iiij8  D8  Marlin  v8 

Cockman  xij8  Cockman  xiij8  Cockman  iij8  Cockman  xiiij8 

In  this  year  of  bachelorhood  Marlowe  was  absent  on  the  average 
more  than  half  of  every  quarter,  while  his  fellow-scholar  Lewgar  was 
apparently  not  in  Cambridge  at  all. 

The  records  for  1585-1586  are  wanting. 

1  William   Cockman  matriculated   as   Sizar   of   Corpus   Oct.    13.    1582,   B.A.    158£, 
M.A.  1589. 


G.    C.    MOORE    SMITH 


175 


Then  we  have : 

1586-1587 

in  la  Trim. 
D"  Lewgar 
D8  Marly  ix8 
D8  Cockman  xiij8 


2a  Trim.  3a  Trim.                 4a  Trim. 

D8  Lewgar  ii8  (name  omitted  from  list) 

D8  Marlye  v8  vjd  (name  omitted  from  list) 

D8  Cockman  xj8  D8  Cockman         D8  Cockman  xiiij8 


Marlowe  was  in  residence  for  rather  more  than  half  his  weeks 
between  Michaelmas  1586  and  Lady  Day  1587.  He  had  then  drawn 
his  scholarship  for  six  full  years,  not  counting  that  first  term  before  his 
election  and  admission,  and  in  accordance  with  Parker's  prescriptions  (in 
the  case  of  the  Norwich  scholarships,  at  least)  it  now  came  naturally 
to  an  end.  To  have  held  it  for  even  six  years,  if  Parker's  wishes  were 
observed,  Marlowe  must  have  given  out  that  he  intended  to  take  holy 
orders.  If  he  was  next  heard  of  as  a  writer  for  a  London  playhouse,  one 
may  imagine  that  the  College  authorities  would  look  on  him  with  some 
disfavour. 

However,  though  no  longer  a  scholar,  he  had  perhaps  resided  a  few 
more  weeks  before  taking  his  M.A.  degree  in  July.  The  '  supplicat ' 
preserved  in  the  University  Registry  runs  as  follows : 

'Supplicat  venerentijs  vestris  Christophorus  Marley  vt  nouem 
termini  completi  (post  finalem  eius  determinationem)  in  quibus 
lectiones  ordinarias  audiuit  (licet  non  omnino  secundum  formam 
statuti)  vna  cum  omnibus  oppositionibus  responsionibus  ceterisque 
exercitijs  per  statuta  regia  requisitis  sufficiant  ei  ad  incipienduw 
in  artibus. 

Robertus  Norgate 
Henricus  Ruse  praelector.' 

Dr  Robert  Norgate  (who  died  2  Nov.  following)  was  Master  of 
Corpus  Christi  College  during  the  whole  of  Marlowe's  time  there. 

Mr  Ingram  gives  a  facsimile  of  the  page  of  the  University  Grace- 
Book  for  1587  in  which  the  M.A.'s  of  the  year  appear  in  the  order  of 
their  seniority.  Those  '  Ex  coll.  corp.  xpi.'  include  '  dno  Thome  Lewgar ' 
and  '  Chr.  Marley.' 

No  successor  to  Marlowe  in  his  scholarship  was  elected  for  some 
months.  Under  the  date  'A°  1587  Noueb.  10th'  the  'Registrum  Parvum' 
has  the  entry  '  Bridghman  eletus  [sic]  et  admissus  in  locum  donj  Marley.' 
But  apparently  some  hitch  occurred,  or  there  is  a  mistake  in  our  docu- 
ments, for  the  College  Order  Book  dates  Bridgeman's  admission  five 
months  later.  Under  the  date  '  Vicesimo  septimo  Aprilis  Anno  1588  '  it 


176  Marlowe  at  Cambridge 

has  the  record  '  Jacobus  Bridgman x  electus  et  admissus  est  discipulus 
huius  Collegij  in  locum  Cantuariensis  scholaris  vacantem  quia  M.  Parker 
secundum  ordinationem  Domini  Archiepiscopi  patris  sui  alium  ad 
supplendum  locum  prgdictum  tempore  constitute  ad  collegium  non 
miserit.'  A  further  discrepancy  occurs  when  we  find  from  the  accounts 
that  '  Bridgman '  has  already  paid  his  iii8  iiijd  '  pro  introitu '  (his  fee  on 
succeeding  to  a  scholarship)  in  the  year  ending  Michaelmas  1587. 
This  would  make  us  think  that  the  entry  in  the  Order  Book  should  be 
dated  1587.  Even  so,  however,  the  'Registrum  Parvum '  would  leave 
us  with  a  difficulty.  The  records  of  the  quarterly  payments  to  scholars 
for  the  year  1587-1588  are  unfortunately  missing.  Bridgeman  is 
however  in  the  place  where  we  should  expect  him — among  the  eight 
scholars  partly  Norwich,  partly  the  three  of  the  last  Parker  foundation 
— in  the  first  quarter  of  1588-1589. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  formula  of  the  Order  Book  omits  Marlowe's 
name,  though  it  is  usual  in  such  a  formula  of  admission  that  the  name 
of  the  late  holder  of  the  scholarship  should  be  stated.  Is  this  an 
indication  that  Marlowe  was  in  some  way  in  bad  odour  with  the  College 
authorities  ? 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  statement  in  the  Order  Book  about 
Mr  John  Parker's  failure  to  send  up  a  scholar,  is  a  further  proof  that 
the  scholarship  held  by  Marlowe  was  one  on  Parker's  last  foundation. 

The  new  information  afforded  by  the  College  Accounts  will  probably 
be  found  interesting  in  several  respects.  I  will  call  attention  to  one 
small  point,  that  of  the  spelling  of  the  poet's  name.  The  accounts 
though  kept  year  by  year  by  different  bursars  are  singularly  consistent 
in  giving  it  up  to  Michaelmas  1585  as  Marlin,  Marleu,  Malyn  or  Marlyn. 
After  the  missing  year  1585-1586,  they  give  it  in  1586-1587  as 
Marly,  Marlye.  The  College  Order  Book  in  recording  his  admission  as  a 
pensioner  in  '  1580 '  calls  him  Marlin.  as  also  when  recording  his  admis- 
sion to  his  scholarship  in  May  1581.  The  University  record  of  his 
matriculation  in  1580-1  has  Marlin,  the  supplicat  for  his  B.A.  degree  in 
1583-4  has  the  same  form,  but  the  entry  in  the  Grace-Book  of  that 
date  has  '  Marley.'  The  supplicat  for  his  M.A.  degree  in  1587  and  the 
entry  in  the  Grace- Book  have  Marley.  It  looks  as  if  he  had  regularly 
used  the  name  Marlin  in  his  first  years  of  residence,  but  had  come  to 
adopt  Marley  later.  He  is  '  Christopher  Marley  of  London '  when 
giving  his  recognizance  to  appear  to  answer  a  charge  on  October  1, 

1  James  Bridgman  matriculated  as  Sizar  of  Trinity  June  18, 1586,  M.A.  (Corpus)  1593, 
S.T.B.  1600.     There  is  no  record  of  hit  bachelor's  degree. 


G.    C.    MOORE    SMITH  177 

15881.  Peele  in  the  prologue  to  his  Honour  of  the  Garter  written  a 
month  after  Marlowe's  death  addresses  him  as  'Marley,  the  Muses' 
darling  for  thy  verse.' 

On  the  other  hand  he  was  entered  in  the  Canterbury  baptismal 
register  in  1564  as  'the  Sonne  of  John  Marlow'2  and  this  apparently 
was  the  form  used  by  his  father  and  mother,  though  his  father  was 
sometimes  called  by  others  'John  Marley'  or  'Marlyn3.'  The  earlier 
records  of  the  family  at  Canterbury  seem  to  alternate  between  'Marley' 
and  '  Marlowe.'  It  remains  therefore  a  puzzle  why  the  poet  should 
have  allowed  himself  to  be  known  as  Marlin  during  the  early  years  of 
his  Cambridge  life,  and  a  little  strange  that  after  that  name  was 
discarded  he  should  have  been  known  indiscriminately  as  '  Marley '  and 
'  Marlowe.' 

One  other  conclusion  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the  facts  given  in 
the  College  Accounts.  Marlowe  could  not  well  have  found  time  to 
serve  in  the  Low  Countries  in  any  of  the  years  for  which  we  have 
information,  though  we  may,  if  we  like,  imagine  him  to  have  taken  a 
term  or  two  off  for  this  purpose  in  the  year  1585-6  of  which  we  know 
nothing.  This  however  is  unlikely.  Nor  can  we  suppose  that  he  went 
abroad  after  taking  his  M.A.  degree  in  July  1597.  If  Tamburlaine 
appeared  in  that  year,  Marlowe  must  at  once  have  plunged  from  the 
quiet  Old  Court  of  Corpus  into  the  bustling  Bohemian  life  of  the 
London  playhouse. 

I  am  indebted  to  the  Master  and  Fellows  of  Corpus  Christi  College 
for  their  kind  permission  to  publish  the  above  facts. 

[POSTSCRIPT.  I  might  have  mentioned  that  Marlowe's  name  appears 
in  a  document  in  the  British  Museum  (Lansdowne  MS.  33.  43)  entitled 
'  Nomina  Professorum,  et  Auditorum,  omnium  Artium,  et  Scientiarum 
in  Vniuersitate  Cantabrigia  Arnio  Regni  Elizabethse  vicesimo  tertio 
29°  die  Octobris  Anno  Domini  1581.'  While  '  D.  Thexton '  heads  the 
list  of  Corpus  men  who  were  hearing  lectures  in  Philosophy,  Mathematics 
and  Greek,  Munday  comes  15th,  Leugare  19th  and  'Merling'  27th 
among  the  29  hearing  lectures  in  Dialectic  or  Logic.  Nine  junior 
students  are  entered  for  Rhetoric.] 

G.  C.  MOORE  SMITH. 
SHEFFIELD. 

1  Middlesex  Sessions  Roll,  ed.  Jeaffreson,  i,   189  (quoted  by  Mr  Sidney  Lee  in  the 
Athenaeum,  Aug.  18,  1894). 

2  See  the  facsimile  given  by  Mr  Ingram,  p.  21. 

3  Ingram,  pp.  17,  265,  266,  267,  etc. 

M.  L.  R.   IV.  12 


SHORT    STORIES  AND   ANECDOTES   IN 
SPANISH   PLAYS. 

BRIEF  narratives,  called  cuentos,  cuentedllos,  ejemplos,  ejemplicos, 
historias,  or  consejas1,  abound  in  the  Peninsular  drama  of  the  Golden 
Age,  despite  the  rash  generalisation  of  a  recent  writer,  whose  name 
need  not  be  recalled.  '  Fables  and  anecdotes,'  he  avers,  '  are  so  rarely 
found  in  Spanish  literature  of  this  time  that  it  is  worth  while  to  draw 
attention  to  their  occurrence  in  the  Donado '  (a  novel  published  in 
1624).  It  may  be  doubted,  on  the  contrary,  whether  any  other  modern 
literature,  including  medieval  sermonology,  has  such  a  well-nigh  inex- 
haustible storehouse  of  anecdotes  and  fables2.  In  few  plays  are  short 
stories  wholly  wanting:  some  have  as  many  as  half  a  dozen,  and 
Calderdn  even  took  occasion  to  parody  the  practice  in  Dicha  y  desdicha 
del  nombre,  where  Tristan  indulges  in  them  as  freely  as  his  cousin 
german,  Sancho  Panza,  in  proverbs — and  like  the  proverbs  of  Don 
Quixote's  squire,  the  stories  are  not  always  pat  to  the  purpose. 

We  are  all  familiar  with  the  example  in  CalderoVs  Life  is  a  Dream 
(i)8.  It  is  related  of  a  philosopher  that  he  was  so  poor  that  he  sustained 
himself  on  herbs.  '  Can  there  be  anyone/  he  said  to  himself,  '  poorer 
and  sadder  than  I  ? '  And  when  he  turned  round,  he  found  a  reply  on 
seeing  another  philosopher  picking  up  the  leaves  which  he  had  cast 

aside. 

Cuentan  de  un  sabio,  que  un  dfa 
Tan  pobre  y  misero  estaba, 
Que  s61o  se  sustentaba 
De  unas  yerbas  que  cogfa. 
I  Habrd  otro  (entre  sf  decfa) 
Mas  pobre  y  triste  que  yo? 
Y  cuaudo  el  rostro  volvi6, 
Hall6  la  respuesta,  viendo 
Que  iba  otro  sabio  cogiendo 
Las  hojas  que  el  arrqj6. 

1  Doubtless  also  patranas,fdbulas,fabUllas,  etc. 

2  Fables  will  be  discussed  elsewhere :   but  it  may  be  noted  here  that  historians  of 
Spanish  literature  have  wholly  overlooked  countless  precious  gems,  some  of  which  do  not 
suffer  by  comparison  with  Juan  Ruiz's  masterly  renderings. 

8  To  facilitate  reference,  the  stories  are  numbered. 


MILTON   A.    BUCHANAN 


179 


This  de'cima1  is  typical  of  what  the  late  Archbishop  Trench  charac- 
terised as  '  little  fables  or  other  narratives,  compositions  perfectly 
rounded  and  complete  in  themselves,  [which]  occur  not  infrequently  in 
Calder<5n2 ' — and,  of  course,  in  other  dramatists.  So  concise  and  artisti- 
cally contrived  are  these  anecdotes  or  stories  in  cameo,  that  they  arrest 
the  attention  even  of  those  who  only  care  to  sip  in  Spanish  dramatic 
literature,  and  the  wonder  is  that  they  have  been  neglected  so  long. 
Sr  Mene"ndez  y  Pelayo,  in  his  recent  history  of  the  Spanish  novel,  which 
is  sufficiently  comprehensive  in  scope  to  include  facezie,  never  even 
alludes  to  them.  A  considerable  garner  will  be  found,  however,  in  two 
volumes  of '  stories,  thoughts  and  witticisms  from  Tirso,  Moreto,  Lope 
de  Vega,  Calder<5n  and  Alarcdn,'  published  some  years  ago  by  Eduardo 
Bustillo  and  Eduardo  de  Lustom53;  but  their  collection  is  amateurish 
and  far  from  complete.  Another  somewhat  more  pretentious  collection 
is  Jimenez  y  Hurtado's  Cuentos  espanoles  contenidos  en  las  pruducciones 
dramdticas  de  Calderon,  Tirso,  Alarcdn  y  Moreto,  con  notas  [!]  y 
biografias,  Madrid,  1881. 

It  is  my  purpose  here  to  rehabilitate  these  waifs  of  a  bygone 
century.  Those  who  deem  such  nugae  unworthy  of  so  much  labour 
need  only  be  reminded  that  no  sharp  distinction  can  be  made  between 
anecdote  and  story,  that  a  poet  like  Dante  did  not  disdain  to  give 
artistic  form  and  setting  to  a  mere  anecdote  about  Trajan,  that  similar 
narratives  have  often  suggested  very  pretentious  productions,  to  cite 
only  Jean  Aicard's  most  recent  play,  Le  Manteau  du  roi  (Der  Konig  im 
Bade 

It  was  probably  Lope  de  Vega-  who  popularised  cuenticillos.  As 
early  as  1598,  Juan  de  Ochoa  seems  to  allude  to  their  insertion  in 
plays,  when  he  says,  addressing  dramatists: 

Y  de  un  librillo,  Alivio  de  viandantes, 
Hurtdis  los  dichos  y  sacdis  concetos4. 

That  collections  of  anecdotes  like  Timoneda's,  Cruz's  and  others, 
were  thoroughly  ransacked  by  dramatists  in  search  of  material  is  an 
axiom.  The  following  parallel  versions  will  show  how  thinly  veiled  the 
poet's  theft  remained.  In  Melchor  de  la  Cruz's  Floresta  Espanola, 
Chap,  vi,  we  read : 

1  Calderon's  source  was  probably  Juan  Manuel's  Conde  Lucanor  (X),  ed.  Knust,  p.  323. 

2  Life's  a  Dream,  1856,  p.  223. 

3  Galas  del  ingenio,  Madrid,  s.a.  (1890  ?). 

4  That  is,   if  the  book  referred  to  is  Cristoforo  Zabata's  Diporto  de'  viandanti,  or 
Timoneda's  Alivio  de  caminantes.     There  remains  the  possibility  that  Ochoa  refers  to 
plots. 

12—2 


180     Short  Stories  and  Anecdotes  in  Spanish  Plays 

Uno,  que  era  tuerto  de  un  ojo,  top6  una  ruadrugada,  quando  querfa  amanecer,  d 
un  corcobado,  y  dfxole :  Compadre,  de  manana  habeis  cargado.  Respondi<5  el  cor- 
cobado :  Por  cierto  sf,  de  manana  es,  pues  vos  no  teneis  abierta  rods  de  una  ventana. 

Rojas  Zorrilla  versified  the  anecdote  in  the  following  manner  (n): 

Un  dfa  al  amanecer 
Dijo  un  tuerto  d  un  corcovado : 
Muy  de  manana  ha  cargado 
Vuesarced  al  parecer. 

Ya  se  ve  que  es  de  manana, 
Dijo  el  corcovado  al  tuerto, 
Pues  que  vuesarced  no  ha  abierto 
Mas  de  media  ventana. 

Obligados  y  ofendidos,  Act  I1. 

It  is  significant  that  Cervantes  indulged  but  sparingly  in  the  new 
vein.  His  Don  Quixote  and  other  works  abundantly  attest  familiarity 
with  exempla,  but  in  his  dramatic  works  there  is  only  one  instance  of 
an  anecdote  such  as  we  are  concerned  with  here.  It  occurs  in  La 
entretenida*,  a  comedia  that  is  conceived,  moreover,  in  the  manner  of 
the  Lope  school,  as  Cervantes  understood  it. 

In  form,  the  cuentecillo  owed  much,  at  the  outset,  to  classical  models 
like  Anacreon's  Love  stung  with  a  bee,  or  Martial's  On  Euclides.  The 
medium  may  have  been  Italian,  especially  as  Alamanni  and  other  cinque- 
centists  were  very  prolific  in  compositions  of  this  kind.  One  of  Lope's 
versions  of  Anacreon's  epigram  cited  above  is  as  follows  (ix): 

Una  vez  dicen  que  Amor 
Quiso  coger  un  panal, 
Y  una  abeja,  al  mismo  igual, 
Le  di6  notable  dolor. 

Quejose  d  su  madre  bella, 
Y  ella  entonces  le  replica : 
'Tambi^n  tu  eres  cosa  chica, 
Y  das  tal  dolor  con  ella3.' 

1  The  same  Floresta  was  probably  the  source  of  the  following  narratives  :    (III)   A 
mistake  arising  out  of  the  use  of  the  words  albardas  and  alabardas  (Cruz,  vn,  i,  24;  Lope, 
La  Have  de  la  honra,  i,  xv).     (IV)    How  a  student  secured  lodging  when  the  innkeeper's 
wife  was  in  the  throes  of  parturition  (Cruz,  ix,  i,  1;    Tirso  de  Molina,  El  castiyo  del 
penseque,  i,  iv).     (V)    The  retort  of  a  lady  whose  trancera  was  fairer  than  her  delantera 
(Cruz,  xi,  iv,  7;  Tirso,  La  celosa  de  si  misma,  i,  iii).     (VI)    The  preacher  who  sent  his 
servant  to  a  butcher  called  David  (Cruz,  v,  i,  1;  Calder6n,  Dicha  y  desdicha  del  nombre,  n). 
(VII)    A  widow  and  the  caroza  (Cruz,  iv,  vii,  1;  Calder6n,  ibid.,  11),  etc. 

2  (VIII)    Pidiole  d  una  fregona . . .  (Act  in). 

3  El  testimonio  vengado,  n,  iii.    Lope  offers  another  version  in  Pobreza  no  es  vileza,  in. 
Needless  to  say,  this  most  famous  of  idylls — Theocritus'  (?)  designation — was  very 

popular  in  Spain.  Among  other  versions  made  during  the  seventeenth  century  may  be  noted 
Quevedo's  and  Manuel  de  Villega's.  Italian  renderings  (by  Alamanni,  etc.)  and  some  at 
least  of  the  many  French  versions  (by  Bonsard,  Belleau,  Baif,  etc.)  were,  not  unlikely, 
accessible  in  the  Peninsula. 

The  practice  of  repeating  stories  may  be  further  illustrated  by  the  following  references : 
(X)  Jupiter  (variant  Venus)  and  the  man  who  loved  a  cat  (Lope,  El  Principe  perfeto, 
n,  xiv,  and  El  Castigo  sin  Venganza,  in).  (XI)  One  who  fed  on  poison  became  sick  when 
the  supply  was  exhausted  (Calderon,  Saber  del  mal  y  del  bien,  i,  iv,  and  Para  veneer  d 
amor,  querer  vencerle,  in).  (XII)  Ono  who  was  mending  his  breeches,  when  asked  what 


MILTON   A.    BUCHANAN  181 

It  will  be  in  order  now  to  take  up  stories  individually.  In  Mira  de 
Mesqua's  El  Martir  de  Madrid,  licensed  September  3,  1619,  occurs  one 
(xni)  of  a  captive  who  would  in  ten  years  teach  an  elephant  to  speak. 
When  asked  how,  he  replies  that  at  the  expiration  of  the  time  set,  he 
himself,  the  king,  to  whom  the  boast  had  been  made,  or  the  elephant 

would  be  dead: 

Tengo  el  exemplo  delante 
del  que  se  oblig6  &  los  daiios 
sino  ensenaba  en  diez  anos 
a  hablar  un  elefante : 
que  diciendo  otro  cautibo, 
j  c6mo  te  puedes  librar 
si  en  efeto  a  de  llegar 
el  termino  executibo  1 
risuefio  le  respondi6 
i 

que  alguno  se  rnoriera, 

el  rey,  elefante,  o  yo : 

y  ansf  el  negocio  ha  finado2. 

In  1616  Lope  de  Vega  dramatised  this  anecdote  in  El  Principe  perfeto3. 
As  he  had  been  anticipated  by  Cervantes,  it  may  be  well  to  present  the 
two  versions  in  full.  Lope's  rendering  is  as  follows : 

Letrado.  Advierto 

Una  cosa  extrana  y  nueva. 

I  Es  bien  que  mi  habilidad 

Tan  peregrina  se  pierda  ? 
Rey.  i  En  qu4  la  tienes  I 

Letrado.  Escucha : 

En  que,  fuera  de  mis  letras, 

Hare  tan  notables  cosas, 

Que  sera  la  menor  dellas 

El  hacer  que  un  elefante 

Hable  nuestra  propia  lengua. 
Rey.  i  Un  elefaute  ! 

Letrado.  ^Eso  dudas? 

Intenta,  Senor,  la  prueba 

Con  los  que  Gama*  ha  traido, 

O  d  mil  muertes  me  condena. 
Rey.  £En  qu.6  termino  le  haras 

Hablar  ? 

Letrado.  Diez  anos. 

Rey.  Pues  sea: 

El  y  el  elefante  este"n 

Presos,  mientras  que  le  ensena. 
Alcalde  (ap.  al  Letrado).     Hombre,  jque  es  lo  que  habeis  dicho? 

[Como  intentais  tal  quimera? 

was  the  new(s),  replied,  nothing  but  the  thread  (Calderdn,  Dicha  y  desdicha  del  nombre,  i, 
and  Nadiefie  su  secreto,  in),  etc. 

1  This  line  is  defective  in  my  copy. 

2  MS.  Biblioteca  nacional,  Madrid,  fol.  56  (2)  vo. 

3  Ed.  Eivad.,  p.  135.     It  may  be  noted  here,  as  a  trifling  addendum  to  the  Bennert- 
Chorley  bibliography  (p.  527),  that  a  third  part  was  promised.     See  close  of  the  play  (in 
Vol.  iv,  not  Vol.  n). 

4  Vasco/de^Gama,  the  navigator. 


182     Short  Stones  and  Anecdotes  in  Spanish  Plays 

Letrado.      Callad,  Alcalde,  [no  veis 

Que  en  diez  anos  que  me  quedan 
De  termino,  es  impossible 
Claramente  que  no  muera 
Yo,  6  el  Rey,  6  el  elefante  ? 

Cervantes'  version  forms  the  sub-plot  of  La  gran  Sultana,  published 
in  1615.  In  Act  n  a  captive,  Madrigal  by  name,  appears  before  a 
judge  (in  Lope's  play  the  king  acts  in  the  same  capacity)  and,  in  order 
to  free  himself,  says : 

Y  aquel  valiente  elefante 
Del  Gran  Senor,  yo  me  ofrezco 
De  hacerle  hablar  en  diez  anos 
Distintamente  turquesco; 
Y  cuando  de  esto  faltare 
Que  me  empalen,  que  en  el  fuego 
Me  abrasen. 

On  being  released,  he  is  reminded  by  Andrea  that  he  himself  does  not 
speak  Turkish,  but  he  retorts  : 

Habrd  tiempo  en  diez  anos 

De  aprender  el  turco  y  griego. 
Andrea.      jAl  cabo  no  has  de  morir, 

Cuando  caigan  en  el  caso 

De  la  burla? 
Madrigal.  No  hace  al  caso ; 

Dejame  agora  vivir; 

Que  en  termiuo  de  diez  anos, 
morir£  el  elefaute, 
yo,  6  el  Turco... 

Plans  '  aft  gang  aglee/  and  Madrigal  is  forced  to  resort  to  the  footwear 
of  Villadiego : 

Porque  no  hay  que  esperar  £  los  diez  anos 
De  aquella  elefantil  catedra  mia. 
Mas  vale  que  los  ruegos  de  los  buenos 
El  salto  de  la  mata1. 

The  well-known  story  of  The  glove  and  the  lion  (xiv)  occurs  in  Mira 
de  Mescua's  Oaldn  valiente  y  discrete  (ed.  Rivad.,  p.  36  c) : 

En  Castilla  sucedi6 
Que  una  dama  arrqj6  un  guante, 
En  presencia  de  su  amante, 
A  unos  leones ;   entro 
El  galan,  y  le  sac6, 
Y  luego,  a  su  dama  infiel 
Le  di6  en  el  rostro  con  el,... 

1  For  parallels  and  bibliography  see  the  present  writer's  study  on  Sebastian  Mey's 
Fabulario,  in  Modern  Language  Notes,  1906,  p.  201.  The  Sieur  d'Ouville's  version  in 
L' Elite  des  contes  de...  (ed.  Bistelhuber),  No.  xxxix,  is  very  similar. 


MILTON    A.    BUCHANAN  183 

This  story,  so  briefly  rounded  off  by  Mira,  forms  the  plot  of  Lope's 
El  guante  de  Dona  Blanca,  and  suggested  the  opening  scenes  of  Miguel 
Sanchez's  La  isla  Bdrbara1. 

In  Lope's  El  Castigo  sin  venganza  (Act  n)  is  told  the  story  (xv)  of 
Antiochus  and  Seleuchus.  Lope's  version  has  a  twofold  interest;  in 
the  first  place,  it  is  interrupted  by  dialogue,  and  secondly,  it  has  a 
parallel  in  the  main  plot  of  the  play  itself.  Lope,  moreover,  used  it  as 
the  plot  of  another  play,  La  gran  columna  fogosa2. 

Lope  tells  the  following  story  (xvi)  of  Dante,  not  found  in  Papanti's 
Dante  secondo  la  tradizione  e  i  novellatori : 

Cudl  era  de  todo  el  mundo 
El  mas  discrete,  queria 
Saber  un  rey,  y  aquel  dia 
Dante,  en  las  letras  profundo, 

Le  dijo  que  el  mas  discrete 
Fiie"  Dem6crito,  aquel  sabio, 
Sin  hacer  d  nadie  agravio, 
Mas  prudente  y  mas  perfeto ; 

Y  era  porque  re  refa 
De.  todo  cuanto  pasaba ; 
Que  si  Heraclito  lloraba, 
Fue  necia  filosoffa. 

Ciento  y  veinte  anos  vivi6 
Dem6crito  con  su  risa; 
El  lloron  se  di<5  mas  prisa; 
Que  a  sesenta  no  lleg<5. 

(Quien  ama  no  kaga  fieros,  ed.  Rivad.,  p.  451.) 

The  part  of  this  anecdote  which  is  concerned  with  Democritus  and 
Heraclitus,  was  popularised  by  Valerius  Maximus3.  Lope's  version 
differs  slightly. 

The  well-known  story  of  El  huevo  de  Juanelo,  told  also  of  Columbus, 
is  thus  referred  to  by  Calder6n  (xvn) : 

Lo  del  huevo  de  Juanelo, 
Que  los  ingenios  mas  grandes 
Trabajaron  en  hacer 
Que  en  un  bufete  de  jaspe 
Se  tuviese  en  pie,  y  Juanelo 
Con  solo  llegar  y  darle 
Un  golpecito,  le  tuvo. 

1  The   anecdote  has  been  made  familiar  by  Brantome,  Garci  Sanchez  de  Badajoz, 
Bandello,  Schiller,  Leigh  Hunt,  Browning,  etc.    See  Liebrecht,  in  Germania,  vn,  pp.  419  ff.; 
Menendez  y  Pelayo,  Lope,  ed.  Acad.,  ix,  pp.  Ixxxv  fif. ;  Puymaigre,  in  Revue  Hispanique, 
1895,  pp.  166  f. ;  Chauvin,  Bibliographic  des  Ouvrages  arabes,  vin,  p.  146. 

2  Ed.  Acad.,  p.  206.     Lope's  source  would  be  Bandello,  n,  Iv,  and  he,  in  turn,  refers 
to  Petrarch's  Trionfo  d'Amore.     See  Dunlop,  History  of  Fiction,  ed.  1906,  n,  p.  72,  for 
ultimate  sources  and  parallels.     The  motive  was  used  by  Torres  Naharro  in  La  Aquilana 
and  in  several  English  plays. 

3  Other  references  will  be  found  in  Cristoval  Suarez  de  Figueroa's  Plaza  universal... 
(1615),  vii,  p.  33. 


184     Short  Stories  and  Anecdotes  in  Spanish  Plays 

Las  grandes  dificultades, 
Hasta  saberse  lo  son ; 
Que,  sabido,  todo  es  facil. 

(La  dama  duende,  n.) 

Lope,  in  Santiago  el  verde  (ed.  Rivad.,  p.  198),  narrates  a  familiar 
story  of  the  Emperor  Frederic  (xviil).  This  monarch,  before  besieging 
a  certain  city,  gave  permission  to  the  women  to  carry  out  whatever 
they  could  bear  on  their  backs,  whereupon  they  carried  out  their 
husbands1. 

A  legislator  (xix)  decreed  that,  as  a  punishment  for  adultery,  the 
eyes  should  be  taken  out.  When  his  son  was  found  guilty  of  this 
offence,  the  legislator  took  out  one  of  his  son's  eyes  and  one  of  his  own. 
Lope,  El  amigo  hasta  la  muerte  (ed.  Rivad.,  iv,  p.  884) 2. 

MILTON  A.  BUCHANAN. 
TORONTO. 


1  Mexia,  in  the  Historia  Imperial...,  fo.  ccxlvii,  vo.,  ed.  1564,  the  usual  source  in  Spain 
for  such  lore,  tells  the  anecdote  of  Conrad  III. 

2  Lope  refers  to  this  story  in  El  marqu6s  de  Mantua,  ed.  Acad.,  xm,  p.  305.     The  first. 
Spanish  version  is  probably  that  of  the  Libra  de  Castigos  e  documentos,  ed.  Rivad.,  p.  105; 
the  source,  Valerius  Maximus,  is  given.     Moreto  developed  the  theme  into  a  play,  La 
fuerza  de  la  ley. 


(To  be  continued.) 


ON  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  PROSE  PORTION  OF  THE 
'PARIS  PSALTER.' 

THE  Old  English  Prose  Version  of  the  first  fifty  Psalms,  which  is 
preserved  in  the  so-called  Paris  Psalter  (Bibliotheque  nationale,  Fonds 
latin  8824),  has  not  received  the  attention  it  deserves.  Until  lately,  it 
has  been  accessible  only  in  Thorpe's  Libri  Psalmorum,  etc.  (Oxford, 
1835),  long  since  out  of  print.  And  this  edition  falls  so  far  short  of 
modern  requirements  of  exactness,  as  to  be  of  small  value  until  corrected 
laboriously  with  the  aid  of  Tanger's  collation  (Anglia,  VI,  Anzeiger). 

About  three  years  ago  therefore,  I  undertook  the  preparation  of  a 
new  and  critical  text,  together  with  a  detailed  grammatical  analysis. 
As  far  back  as  Easter,  1907,  I  carefully  examined  and  re-collated  the 
Paris  Codex ;  but  I  was  unable  to  have  the  whole  of  my  work  ready 
for  the  press  until  the  beginning  of  last  year.  In  the  meantime,  there 
has  appeared  a  new  edition  of  the  Prose  Psalms  under  the  auspices  of 
Professor  J.  W.  Bright,  of  Johns  Hopkins  University.  As  the  publi- 
cation of  my  own  work,  which,  I  ought  to  mention,  was  announced  in 
Englische  Studien  (xxxvn,  176)  in  the  autumn  of  1906,  has  thus  been 
stopped,  it  may  perhaps  not  be  out  of  place  to  record  here  a  few  notes 
and  emendations  which  are  the  result  of  actual  study  of  the  MS.  and 
its  linguistic  forms. 

Let  us  first  consider  a  few  readings  which  stand  out  in  contrast  to 
the  general  usage  of  the  Codex  and  are  obviously  the  work  of  a  late 
scribe  or  scribes.  Owing  to  the  impossibility  of  comparison  with  other 
MSS.,  one  is,  of  course,  unable  to  sift  out  such  late  readings  wjth 
certainty  in  every  case ;  but  at  any  rate  some  attempt  to  do  so  ought 
to  be  made. 

332  MS.,  Th(orpe),  Br(ight),  herod.  Read  hered.  Our  text  keeps 
the  I  and  II  Conjugations  absolutely  distinct,  the  only  exceptions  being 
gremiaS  511,  which  indeed  is  found  in  early  WS.,  and  gegyrion  3424. 

3424  MS.  Th.  Br.  gegyrion,  an  extremely  late  form.  Read  gegyrwen. 
In  all  other  examples  of  gierwan  and  smierwan  in  our  text,  the  old 
regular  forms  are  preserved;  viz.,  gegyred  4411,  gesmyredest  227,  gesmy- 


186    On  the  Text  of  the  Prose  Portion  of  the  'Paris  Psalter' 

rede  22  449.  It  is  possible  that  the  ending  -ion  is  due  merely  to  careless 
copying ;  for  the  same  three  letters  occur  immediately  above  the  word, 
in  the  expression  (beslepen  h)i  on  (hy)  of  the  line  before. 

262  4818  afcerd,  forwyrnd.  Read  afcer[e]d,  forwyrn[e]d.  Except  in 
the  case  of  verbs  in  d,  t,  these  are  the  only  examples  of  syncopated 
past  participles  in  the  text;  whereas  there  are  49  examples  of  -ed, 
among  which  the  form  afoered  actually  occurs  (264).  Aelfric,  too,  has 
only  forwyrned,  afcered.  The  two  short  forms  then,  are  certainly  due 
to  a  late  scribe. 

231  gefylft  must  also  be  corrected  to  gefylled,  not  with  Th.  and  Br.  to 
gefyld. 

151  1612  302  4010  gehealde,  gehwyrfe,  efste,  arcere.  These  forms  of 
the  Imperative  stand  alone.  On  the  other  hand  we  have  of  the  strong 
long  stems,  of  the  strong  short  stems,  and  of  the  weak  long  stems, 
48,  13  and  61  examples  respectively  without  the  final  e,  among  which 
occur  gehwyrf  twice  and  geheald  four  times.  It  is  to  be  noted,  how- 
ever, that  a  form  Icere  occurs  once  in  the  Hatton  MS.  of  the  Cura 
Pastoralis.  Perhaps,  then,  the  four  Imperatives  in  -e  are  to  be  retained 
in  the  text. 

hig  24,  919,  107,  1714>18>32  etc.  This  spelling  is  of  comparatively  rare 
occurrence.  Any  editor  who,  as  Bright  does,  regularly  alters  mani  to 
manig,  should  for  the  sake  of  consistency  remove  also  this  late  WS. 
converse  spelling  of  -ig  for  I . 

29  MS.  and  editors  wylst.  Read  wyl[d]st  and  note  the  retention  of 
the  d  in  all  similar  stems  in  our  text,  e.g.  gescyldst,  gehyldst,  etc. 

55  specaS.  Perhaps  read  sp\r]ecu$.  This  r  is  dropped  sporadically, 
it  is  true,  even  in  early  WS.;  but  there  are  32  examples  of  spr-  in 
our  text. 

86  MS.  Th.  Br.  gesetest.  Read  geset\f\est.  If  a  Present  had  been 
intended  here,  the  form  would  probably  have  been  gesetst,  as  in  4417; 
for  uncontracted  forms  are  extremely  rare.  (The  ratio  of  uncontracted 
forms  to  contracted  is :  weak,  14  : 109  ;  strong,  6  : 170.)  But  we  have 
to  do  here  with  a  Preterite,  '  constituisti.'  Cf.  gesettes  VespPs.  CantPs., 
gesettest  RegPs. 

In  all  the  above  cases,  conservative  editing,  I  admit,  might  reasonably 
leave  the  text  untouched  and  relegate  emendations  to  the  foot-notes. 
I  pass  on  to  MS.  readings  which  are  too  obviously  faulty  to  be  left  as 
they  stand.  It  will  be  noticed  that,  of  the  large  number  of  such  faulty 
readings,  which  were  either  emended  unsatisfactorily  or  passed  over 


J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  187 

altogether  by  Thorpe,  the  majority  have  been  reproduced  by  Bright 
with  great  faithfulness :  in  the  few  cases  in  which  the  American  scholar 
ventures  on  an  independent  reading,  he  would  have  done  better  to  trust 
to  his  predecessor. 

96  MS.  heora  \u  towurpe,  Th.  '  vox  ceastra  deest,'  therefore  Br.  heora 
ceastra,  etc.  The  right  word  to  supply  is  byrig;  cf.  3024  454  471>2>7. 

101  MS.  Icere  me,  overlooked  by  Th.,  also  by  Br.     Supply  ge. 

1711  MS.  betwu  with  mark  of  abbreviation  over  the  u.  Br.,  following 
Th.  again,  resolves  into  betwux.  Read  betwuh  and  cf.  162. 

1743  MS.  qftlugon,  t  above  the  line  and  in  another  handwriting.  Th. 
(text)  oflugon ;  Th.  (notes),  Br.  oft  lugon.  Though  I  have  been  unable 
to  discover  any  other  example,  I  should  prefer,  with  Wiilfing,  to  keep 
the  word  as  first  written.  Cf.  the  verbs  with  the  prefix  of-,  in  Bosworth- 
Toller's  AS.  Dictionary,  in  Wiilfing's  Die  Syntax  in  den  Werken  Alfreds 
des  Grossen  (§  109),  and  in  Napier's  Contributions  to  Old  English  Lexi- 
cography (Trans.  Phil.  Soc.,  1906). 

186  MS.  Th.  \e  ne  gyre  mistlica  godes  gesceafta;  Br.  gyrre.  We 
have  no  evidence  that  * gyrran  was  ever  used  transitively.  In  the 
second  place,  the  meaning  '  garrire,'  '  sonare,'  makes  no  sense  here.  In 
the  third  place,  the  corresponding  Latin  passage, '  quorum  non  audientur 
voces  eorum,'  shews  what  has  happened  to  the  text — the  copyist  has 
simply  omitted  two  letters.  Read  g[eh\yre. 

204  MS.  he  \e  bced.  The  correct  reading  is  noted  by  Tanger.  Th. 
by  an  oversight  has  omitted  ]>e,  and  Br.  again  reprints  him  faithfully. 

2115  MS.  Th.  Br.  gerimde.  There  is  certainly  a  scribal  mistake  here. 
Supply  synt,  or  read  gerimdon. 

233  MS.  Th.  Hwa  is  ]>ces  wyrfte  \od  astige.  Br.  supplies  he  before 
astige,  probably  unnecessarily. 

239  MS.  eowge  ecan  geatu.  Br.  of  course  reads  eowre  with  Th.  The 
right  emendation  is  either  eowru  or  eower. 

271  MS.  Br.  hopige.  This  is  clearly  a  mistake  of  the  scribe's ;  read 
then,  with  Th.,  cleopige,  'clamabo,'  and  cf.  VespPs.,  CantPs.,  RegPs. 

29n  MS.  wlite  hrcegl.  Th.,  copied  again  by  Br.,  reads  hiuite  hrcegl. 
This  does  indeed  appear  a  second  time  in  our  text  (3413).  I  hold,  how- 
ever, both  passages  to  be  corrupt  and  prefer  to  read  witehrcegl.  Cf.  a 
similar  expression  in  the  metrical  part  of  the  Paris  Psalter  (6811) : 

Gif  ic  mine  gewcede  on  witehrcegl 
Cyme  cyrde. 

Cf.  also  the  compounds  witehus,  witesteng,  etc. 


188   On  the  Text  of  the  Prose  Portion  of  the  'Paris  Psalter* 

29U  MS.  Br.  bebyrgdst,  Th.  gebyrgdest.     Read  begyrdest  and  cf.  1737. 

313  MS.  mcegen.  Th.  mcegn,  overlooked  by  Tanger.  Br.  also 
mcegn. 

349  MS.  Th.  gefo  hi;  Br.  gefon  hi.  A  mere  slip  of  the  copyist's 
probably.  Or  could  he  have  been  influenced  by  the  contracted  forms 
of  the  verb  used  before  ge  and  we  ? 

3413  MS.  Br.  ]>e  ic  hi  to  sende.     Read  him  with  Th.     The  scribe  has 
simply  forgotten  to  put  in  the  required  stroke  over  the  i. 

3414  MS.  Br.  \eah\eah  hi ;  Th.  ]>eah  hi.     Read  \eah  ]>e  hi. 

35arg-  MS.  Judas  him  dydon  ;  Br.  dyde.     Read  with  Th.  Jud[e]as. 
3720  MS.  Th.  Br.  tcelaiS.     Correct  of  course  to  IcetaS  and  cf.  4318. 
3815  MS.  Br.  nifara.     Th.'s  reading  ni[d]fara  seems  preferable. 

3915  MS.  ]>u  gearige ;  Th.  (notes),  Br.  \u  me  gearige.     Th,  reads  cor- 
rectly in  his  text  ]>u  me  arige.     C£  3921. 

3916  MS.  afyrranne ;  Br.  afyrrane,  a  printer's  error. 

413  MS.  Th.  ic  gehyrde  mine  secgan.     Br.  alters  mine  into  to  me. 
Th.  (notes)  '  post  mine  nom.  subst.  deesse  videtur.'     I  should  prefer  to 
regard  this  as  an  example  of  the  absolute  use  of  the  relat.  pron.     Very 
similar  examples  are  recorded  by  Wiilfmg  (Die  Syntax  in  den  Werken 
Alfreds  des  Grossen,  §  252).     Cf.  the  phrase  '  me  and  mine.' 

414  Br.,  copying  Th.  without  reflexion,  supplies  ic  after  gemunde, 
quite  unnecessarily. 

418  MS.  hefug  \  Th.  Br.  -ig.  Emendation  is  needed  probably;  for 
we  have,  as  far  as  I  know,  no  other  records  of  hefug.  Cf.  however 
hefogoston  in  the  Blickling  Homilies  (E.E.T.S.,  p.  75),  and  Streitberg, 
Urgerm.  Grammatik,  §  96. 

41"  MS.  Th.  Br.  mysceaS.     Read  hysceaS. 

42s  MS.  [>a  \fe',  Br.  \>a  \e  me.  Th.  reads  rightly  ]>a  me.  It  is 
probable  that  ]>a  alone  could  be  used  as  a  relative  (cf.  Wiilfing,  loc.  cit., 
§  274);  but  there  is  no  room  here  for  a  relative,  for  the  Latin  text  is 
'  ipsa  me  deduxerunt.' 

4418  MS.  cneorisse.  Th.  alters  needlessly  into  -nesse,  and  Br.  shews 
again  his  faith  in  him.  Since  the  year  1888,  editors  of  Old  English 
texts  have  had  no  excuse  for  not  knowing  that  the  termination  -nisse 
was  already  in  use  in  early  WS. 

452  MS.  Br.  eall  eorfte.     More  probable  is  Th.'s  emendation,  ealle. 

453  MS.  su>a  \$r  muntas,  Th.  }>cer ;  Br.  J?a.     The  MS.  reading  makes 
good  sense. 

486  MS.  Th.  Br.  wuldraS.  This  is  clearly  a  mistake  of  the  copyist's, 
and  was  caused  most  likely  by  the  occurrence  of  the  letters  -aS  in  the 


J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  189 

word  gylpaft  immediately  before.     Our  text  contains  no  example  of  the 
late  WS.  plural  termination  -a<5 ;  whereas  -iaS  occurs  75  times. 

49"  MS.  Th.  Br.  ceap.  Taking  into  consideration  the  translator's 
addition  of  the  words  ealra  duna,  I  should  like  to  emend  to  sceap. 

With  reference  to  the  division  of  the  Psalter  into  verses,  there  are 
two  reasonable  courses  open  to  an  editor.  Either  he  can  closely  follow 
the  MS.  in  this  matter — thanks  to  the  initialer  this  is  an  easy  task  in 
the  case  of  the  Paris  Psalter ;  or,  to  facilitate  reference,  he  can  choose 
the  division  of  a  standard  version,  such  as  the  Vulgate.  Thorpe  has 
chosen  the  former  course,  but  does  not  always  follow  it  consistently: 
Bright  has  in  the  following  cases  simply  reprinted  the  inaccuracies  of 
Thorpe's  text. 

1737  begins  at  Acfeollon,  as  Tanger  has  already  noted.  The  ]?  in  ]>u 
me  begyrdest  is  no  initial. 

247> 8.  There  is  great  confusion  here.  For  Ipone. .  .rihtwis  has  been 
misplaced  in  the  Codex  immediately  after  the  verse  Forlpam...wegas. 
Tanger's  note  does  not  show  clearly  that  For  Ipone... rihtwis  forms  a 
separate  verse  (7).  Verse  8  is  formed  by  For]>am...wegas,  and  a  new 
verse  (9)  begins  with  Ealle  godes. 

124.  This  verse,  notwithstanding  Tanger's  note,  is  given  correctly  in 
Thorpe's  edition :  the  concluding  word  is  deafte.  But  in  place  of  Th.'s 
v.  5,  there  are  two  verses  in  the  Codex :  [p]y  lces...]>onne  he  and  [p]a  \e 
me  swenca$...gelyfe;  the  initials  are  lacking  in  both  cases. 

For  the  other  passages  in  which  Thorpe  and  his  imitator  have 
tacitly  departed  from  the  MS.,  reference  may  be  made  to  Tanger's 
valuable  article. 

J.  H.  G.  GRATTAN. 

LONDON. 


SHAKSPEEE'S   PLAYS:    AN   EXAMINATION. 

III1. 

THOSE  who  are  inclined  to  make  a  '  root-and-branch '  study  of  the 
plays  that  pass  current  under  the  name  of  Shakspere  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  a  thorough  knowledge  of  his  style  will  do  well  to  avoid  the 
common  practice  of  beginning  with  the  earliest  ones  and  working 
onwards.  To  do  so  is  to  begin  with  plays  that  are  in  all  probability  not 
very  largely  the  work  of  Shakspere,  and  in  any  case  are  not  characteristic 
of  him.  One  may  adopt  such  a  plan  in  connection  with  Scott  or 
Thackeray,  Byron  or  Shelley,  because  in  the  first  place  there  is  no  doubt 
as  to  what  are  their  early  works,  and  because  in  the  second  place  the 
whole  or  almost  the  whole  of  their  first-period  work  was  done  alone. 
Concerning  Shakspere's  early  efforts,  on  the  contrary,  all  is  doubt :  some 
may  be  extant,  unrecognised  as  his:  some,  included  among  his  works, 
may  be  mainly  the  outcome  of  the  labours  of  others.  In  any  case  it  is 
tolerably  certain  that  he  began  as  a  pupil  and  as  an  imitator;  and 
therefore  to  begin  with  the  plays  of  his  first  period  is  to  run  the  risk  of 
acquiring  a  false  impression  of  his  literary  manner.  It  is  better  and 
wiser  to  start  with  plays  that  may  reasonably  be  assumed  to  belong  to 
the  middle  of  his  third  period,  and  work  thence  onward  to  his  plays  of 
supposed  latest  date  and  then  from  the  starting-point  backwards  to  the 
commencement  of  his  career.  One  may  take  as  the  middle  of  the  great 
writer's  third  period  the  early  part  of  the  year  1601 ;  and  as  the  seven- 
teenth century  began,  according  to  the  reckoning  of  the  day,  in  the 
month  of  March  that  month  may  be  taken  as  giving  the  actual  point  of 
departure.  If  we  adopt  the  chronology  of  one  of  the  critics  most  highly 
endowed  and  most  highly  esteemed — Professor  Dowden — we  shall  then 
read  in  the  following  order  the  plays  which  appear  in  the  first  folio : — 
Julius  Caesar,  Hamlet,  All's  Well,  Measure  for  Measure,  Troilus,  Othello, 

1  Continued  from  Modern  Language  Review,  Vol.  in  (July  1908),  p.  355. 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  191 

Lear,  Macbeth,  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  Coriolanus,  Timon,  Cymbeline, 
The  Tempest,  Winters  Tale,  Henry  VIII,  Twelfth  Night,  As  you  like  it, 
Much  ado,  The  Merry  Wives,  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew,  Henry  V, 
Henry  7F(2),  The  Merchant  of  Venice,  John,  Richard  II,  Romeo  and 
Juliet,  Richard  III,  Henry  VI  (parts  2  and  3),  Midsummer  Night's 
Dream,  Two  Gentlemen,  Comedy  of  Errors,  Love's  Labour's  Lost,  Henry  VI 
(part  1),  Titus  Andronicus.  This  order,  working  onward  for  the  first  14 
plays,  and  backward  for  the  remaining  22,  is  as  nearly  that  of  a  majority 
of  the  critics  as  any  that  is  to  be  found,  and  it  does  as  well  as  any 
other  for  a  basis.  It  is  accordingly  in  that  order,  omitting  the  four  latest 
plays,  which  have  been  already  discussed,  that  they  are  dealt  with  here. 
The  first  six,  as  they  appear  in  the  folio  (and  no  notice  will  be  taken 
of  other  versions),  are  entirely  the  work  of  Shakspere.  Julius  Caesar 
is  almost  certainly  of  two  dates,  though  but  little  of  the  early  work  is 
left.  There  is  plenty  of  reason  to  believe  that  the  play  in  some  form 
was  in  existence  in  1599,  when  Weever  penned  an  allusion  to  it  and 
Jonson  ridiculed  a  line  from  it  in  his  Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour. 
The  original  play,  of  which  traces  are  visible  here  and  there,  must  have 
been  of  very  early  date ;  witness  this  passage  (from  v,  3) : 

Pin.     So  I  am  free  ;  yet  would  not  so  have  been, 
Durst  I  have  done  my  will.     0  Cassius  ! 
Far  from  this  country  Pindarus  shall  run, 
Where  never  Roman  shall  take  note  of  him. 

Mes.     It  is  but  change,  Titinius  ;  for  Octavius 
Is  overthrown  by  noble  Brutus'  power, 
As  Cassius'  legions  are  by  Antony. 

Tit.     These  tidings  will  well  comfort  Cassius. 

Mes.    Where  did  you  leave  him  ? 

Tit.  All  disconsolate, 

With  Pindarus,  his  bondman,  on  this  hill. 

Mes.     Is  not  that  he  that  lies  upon  the  ground  ? 

Tit.     He  lies  not  like  the  living.     O  my  heart ! 

and  so  on  for  the  remainder  of  the  scene.  The  only  argument  used 
against  an  early  date  for  the  play  is  its  absence  from  Meres'  list 
of  Shakespere's  plays  in  1598,  but  Meres'  list  does  not  pretend  to 
be  an  exhaustive  one,  and  if  this  play  was  as  early  and  as  stiff  as 
the  few  passages  still  extant  serve  to  indicate,  it  is  little  wonder 
that  it  was  not  mentioned  among  the  round  dozen  he  honours  with 
notice.  That  it  was  greatly  curtailed  is  shown  by  the  frequency  with 
which  characters  who  are  on  the  stage  are  allowed  to  remain  mute. 
Note  particularly  that  the  Lepidus  of  in,  1  (who  is  not  the  Lepidus  of 


192  Shakspere's  Plays:   an  Examination 

iv,  1)  appears  only  once  and  does  not  speak,  that  in  v,  3,  Strabo, 
Volumnius,  and  Lucilius  are  all  mute,  while  two  non-characters,  Labeo 
and  Flavius,  are  addressed  instead  of  the  two  former,  and  that  Lucius  is 
confounded  with  Lucilius. 

That  Shakspere's  Hamlet  was  founded  on  an  early  work  by  Kyd  is 
now  generally  admitted,  but  the  folio  version  contains  no  fragments  of 
the  early  play.  Even  where  Kyd  was  most  probably  followed  (as  in  the 
catalogue  of  woes  in  iv,  5)  his  verse  was  not  retained.  The  language 
and  the  run  of  the  verse  show  no  signs  of  belonging  to  more  than  one 
period,  but  for  all  that  it  seems  probable  that  it  underwent  some 
revision  by  the  master  even  after  he  had  made  it  entirely  or  practically 
his  own.  Thus,  I,  1,  the  doings  in  which  are  related  in  I,  2,  was  probably 
the  result  of  a  revision,  the  mistake  being  made  of  retaining  the  sub- 
sequent scene  describing  what  is  there  shown.  In  in,  2,  again,  we  are 
confronted  with  the  incredible  circumstance  of  the  king  witnessing 
unmoved  the  dumb  show  rendering  the  acting  of  his  crime.  Is  it  not 
likely  that  in  the  old  play  the  dumb  show  was  sufficient  to  arouse  the 
conscience  of  the  royal  criminal,  and  that  the  subsequent  performance 
was  an  afterthought  on  the  part  of  the  dramatist  ?  The  quarto 
absolutely  proves  revision,  but  that  text  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  paper. 

All's  Well  contains  numerous  signs  of  alteration  or  condensation. 
In  n,  1  Bertram  and  Parolles  take  no  notice  of  the  entry  of  the  king, 
and  probably  the  three  speeches  following  were  not  in  the  original 
version ;  in  II,  3  reference  is  made  to  Lafeu's  son,  the  reference  being 
understandable  only  on  the  assumption  that  he  was  a  character  in  the 
play  as  at  first  written ;  in  the  same  scenes  the  third  lord's  speech  has 
dropped  out ;  Violenta,  one  of  the  dramatis  personae,  never  speaks,  and 
appears  only  in  one  scene  (ill,  5),  where  Helena's  '  Please  it  this  matron ' 
infers  that  Mariana  was  the  only  person  present  besides  herself,  Diana, 
and  the  widow ;  the  steward  is  named  only  in  the  text  (in  in,  4) ; 
Morgan  is  also  named  only  in  the  text  (in  iv,  3) ;  the  clown  is  nob 
named  till  v,  2,  and  then  only  in  the  text ;  much  confusion  is  caused  by 
the  failure  to  name  (except  in  the  text  in  one  scene)  the  two  Dumains, 
who  are  styled  in  the  stage-directions  throughout  in,  6,  iv,  1,  and  iv,  3 
merely  '  1st  Lord '  and  '  2nd  Lord '  and  are  probably  identical  with  the 
first  and  second  lords  of  n,  1  and  in,  1,  and  perhaps  with  those  of  I,  2, 
but  are  not  among  the  lords  in  II,  3 ;  in  v,  3  the  king  says  to  Diana 
'  You  said  you  saw  one  here  in  court  could  witness  it,'  though  the  play 
as  it  exists  gives  us  no  speech  of  Diana's  to  such  effect ;  and,  finally, 
Parolles'  moralising  at  the  end  of  iv,  3  implies  that  an  end  has  been 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  193 

made  of  him,  whereas  he  appears  again  (twice)  in  Act  v.  On  grounds 
of  style  the  same  conclusion  of  play-revision  must  be  arrived  at,  early 
work  being  1, 3,  that  part  of  II,  1  beginning  with  the  king's  fourth  speech 
after  Lafeu's  second  exit,  part  of  n,  3,  the  sonnet  in  in,  4,  and  in,  5. 
Though  in  the  latter  portion  of  II,  3  the  rhyme  is  more  jerky  and 
central-paused  than  is  usual  in  Shakspere,  though  in,  7  is  unusually 
free  from  double  endings,  and  though  the  run  of  the  verse  in  portion  of 
II,  1  and  the  beginning  of  v,  3  differs  somewhat  from  that  elsewhere, 
there  need  be  no  doubt  that  the  play  is  entirely  Shakspere's ;  but  the 
epilogue  is  of  doubtful  authorship. 

Measure  for  Measure  shows  no  clear  sign  of  being  of  more  than  one 
date,  though  the  concluding  of  one  scene  with  a  4-foot  verse  passage  is 
strange  in  a  Shaksperian  play  dating  apparently  from  the  year  1604. 
It  may  be  noted  that  one  character,  Varrius,  never  speaks,  that  Juliet 
is  mute  in  two  of  her  three  scenes,  Barnardine  in  one  of  his  two,  and 
Claudio  in  the  concluding  scene.  It  may  therefore  be  surmised  that  it 
has  been  cut  down  for  stage  purposes. 

The  concluding  portion  of  Troilus  has  been  declared  to  be  largely 
non-Shaksperian,  and  it  is  quite  likely  that  the  final  scene  is  a  late 
addition  to  the  rest  of  the  play,  (which  would  account  for  the  in- 
consistency of  making  Aeneas  the  leader  of  the  Trojan  forces,  though 
he  has  been  declared  in  v,  6  to  have  been- captured  by  the  Greeks),  and 
even  that  the  drama  originally  ended  with  v,  3,  as  is  rendered  probable 
by  the  fact  that  the  folio  concludes  that  scene  with  the  three  closing 
lines  of  the  play ;  but  the  style  of  the  verse  throughout  speaks  distinctly 
in  favour  of  Shakespere's  sole  authorship,  though  the  prologue  is  not 
his.  It  should,  however,  be  obvious  that  the  play  is  of  more  than  one 
date,  the  Cressid  portion  of  iv,  5  being  in  quite  the  manner  of  Love's 
Labour  s  Lost.  There  are  frequently  mute  characters  on  the  stage  and 
Antenor,  who  appears  in  three  scenes,  never  once  opens  his  mouth. 
That  in  its  first  form  the  play  dates  from  no  later  than  the  very  early 
part  of  Shakspere's  second  period  is  shown  not  only  by  the  style  of  such 
of  it  as  is  left,  but  also  by  the  references  in  Willobie's  Avisa  (1594). 
The  mention  in  v,  2  of  Much  Ado  of  the  name  of  Troilus  as  having  been 
already  used  in  blank  verse  affords  perhaps  further  proof  of  an  early 
date. 

Is  it  not  possible  that  the  unfinished  character  of  this  play,  at  the 

close  of  which  Troilus  and  Cressida  seem  to  be  altogether  forgotten,  may 

be  due  to  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  poet  to  pen  a  sequel  ?     The 

line  in  the  epilogue,  'Some  two  months  hence  my  will  shall  here  be 

M.  L.  R.  iv.  13 


194  Shakspere  s  Plays:   an  Examination 

made '  infers  as  much.  If  ever  written,  this  doubtless  dealt  with  the 
revenge  which  in  his  penultimate  speech  Troilus  promises  to  achieve. 
In  conclusion,  attention  may  be  drawn  to  the  inconsistency  in  the 
drawing  of  Ajax. 

The  only  portions  of  Othello  which  arouse  any  feeling  of  doubt  as  to 
their  authorship,  are  the  third  gentleman's  speech  in  II,  1,  and  to 
question  Shakspere's  sole  authorship  on  that  score  would  be  absurd,  for 
the  speeches  mentioned  are,  if  not  manifestly  his,  at  least  possibly  his. 
If,  however,  it  is  tolerably  certain  that  the  play  is  wholly  his,  so  should 
it  be  certain  that  it  is  not  entirely  of  one  period.  The  patch  of  rhyme 
(18  lines)  in  I,  3  is  likely  to  be  of  comparatively  early  date,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  the  explanations  addressed  by  the  characters  to 
the  audience  can  have  been  penned  at  the  late  date  at  which  the  bulk 
of  the  play  as  it  stands  was  written.  Founded  on  an  earlier  play  (also 
by  Shakspere)  it  was  written  apparently  in  1604,  in  which  year  it  was 
given  at  Court,  but  as  printed  contains  additions  of  much  later  date. 

Of  the  plays  as  taken  in  the  order  adopted  here,  Lear  is  the  first 
containing  work  which  is  not  Shaksperian.  As  it  appears  in  the  folio 
(and  indeed  in  the  quarto  version  also,  but  to  a  less  extent)  it  has 
apparently  been  shortened  for  acting  purposes,  but  it  has  also  had  some 
matter  inserted  to  add  to  the  popularity  of  the  play  with  those  who 
liked  comic  relief  to  heavy  tragedy.  There  are  passages  here  that  no 
one  would  suppose  to  be  Shakspere's  if  they  appeared  out  of  '  Shakspere.' 
Such  are  the  last  speech  in  in,  2,  the  bulk  of  Edgar's  third  last  speech 
in  iv,  1  (from  '  Poor  Tom '  to  '  waiting-women '),  parts  of  in,  4  (from 
Edgar's  entry  to  '  Modo  he's  called,  and  Mahu '),  parts  of  in,  6,  while 
Gloster  is  off  the  stage,  and  parts  of  iv,  6,  between  Lear's  entry  and  the 
gentleman's.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  above-mentioned  speech  in 
in,  2  is  found  only  in  the  folio,  not  in  the  quarto;  that  of  the  second  passage 
named  only  the  first  dozen  and  a  half  words  find  a  place  in  the  folio ; 
and  that  of  the  fourth  about  half  appears  in  the  quarto  alone.  Too 
much  weight  must  not,  however,  be  attached  to  this  circumstance,  since 
many  of  the  passages  omitted  in  the  folio  are  unquestionably  Shaksperian 
in  style.  In  any  case  the  great  bulk  of  the  play  is  undoubtedly  his,  the 
non-Shaksperian  portions  consisting  only  of  the  Fool's  prophecy  and 
some  '  poor  Tom  '  nonsense.  The  closing  speech  in  in,  6  is  either  non- 
Shaksperian,  or  of  early  date.  The  latter  conclusion  seems  preferable, 
in  which  case  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  Shakspere  went  over  the  play 
twice.  May  it  not  be  that  in  the  course  of  the  shortening  a  scene 
showing  the  arrival  of  Oswald  and  Kent  at  Cornwall's  court  has  been 


E.    H.    C.    OL1PHANT  195 

dropped  out,  the  description  of  the  scene  being  inserted  in  n,  4  to  make 
up  for  the  omission  ?  Until  this  is  given  it  is  not  clear  what  has  led  up 
to  the  events  in  11,  2.  It  may  be  added  that  Lear's  chief  speech  in  IV,  6 
bears  considerable  resemblance  to  the  style  and  tone  of  the  Revenger's 
Tragedy. 

Macbeth  is,  like  Lear,  not  entirely  the  work  of  Shakspere,  though 
again  the  insertions  are  neither  numerous  nor  important.  The  Cambridge 
Editors  give  a  formidable  list  of  spurious  passages  but  the  only  ones  that 
there  is  reason  to  deprive  Shakspere  of  are  in,  5  and  Hecate's  speech 
and  song  in  IV,  1.  The  writer  of  these  may  have  been  Middleton,  but 
there  is  no  real  resemblance  to  his  style,  and  they  may  merely  be  the 
work  of  one  familiar  with  his  play  The  Witch.  Why  Shakspere  should 
be  so  generally  denied  the  credit  of  the  Porter's  soliloquy  in  II,  3  is  not 
clear.  It  is  like  his  work,  and  the  effectiveness  of  its  introduction  in  its 
place  should  be  evident.  That  the  play  has  been  curtailed  is  obvious, 
and  some  importance  may  attach  to  the  fact  that  the  accentuation  of 
Dunsinane  in  iv,  1  differs  from  that  given  it  in  Act  v.  Whether,  as 
Mr  Fleay  supposes,  portion  of  iv,  1  dates  from  1593 — 4  is  not  clear. 

Antony  and  Cleopatra,  though  of  unusual  length,  may  be  judged  by 
the  number  of  times  that  characters  are  suffered  to  remain  mute  on  the 
stage  to  have  undergone  some  abbreviation.  Its  authorship  is  beyond 
question. 

Coriolanus  is  practically  entirely  Shakspere's,  the  only  passage  clearly 
not  his  being  the  patch  of  twelve  rhyming  lines  introduced  into  II,  3.  In 
n,  1,  in,  2,  and  v,  2  there  seem  to  be  traces  at  times  of  yet  another 
writer ;  but  Shakspere's  hand  is  in  all  these,  and  there  need  be  no  doubt 
of  his  sole  authorship  of  them.  This  play  affords  considerable  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  Professor  Thorndike's  assertion  that  in  his  later  years 
Shakspere  came  under  the  influence  of  the  younger  dramatist,  John 
Fletcher. 

Timon,  the  most  unpleasing  of  all  the  later  plays  of  Shakspere,  is, 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  only  partly  his.  As  to  what  parts  are  not 
his  there  may  be  much  difference  of  opinion ;  and  the  responsibility  for 
the  non-Shaksperian  portions  has  never  been  definitely  settled.  The 
tendency  amongst  the  critics  has  been  to  deprive  Shakspere  of  the 
discredit  of  the  most  unsatisfactory  portions  of  the  play,  and  to  allot  to 
another  writer  most  of  the  cut-and-thrust  of  the  conversation  of 
Apemantus,  though  in  this  connection  it  is  to  be  noted  that  a  somewhat 
similar  abusive  railer  appears  in  Troilus  and  Oressida,  which  stands 
alone  with  Timon  as  a  Shaksperian  representative  of  that  indefinite 

13—2 


196  Shakspere  s  Plays:  an  Examination 

class  of  play  to  which  the  theatrical  manager  of  to-day  gives  the  dis- 
tinctive name  of  '  drama.'  Shakspere's  share  of  the  play  is  I,  1  (minus 
probably  the  portion  between  the  entry  of  Apemantus  and  the  sounding 
of  the  trumpets),  II,  1,  2  (minus  probably  the  Apemantus  portions), 
in,  6,  iv,  1,  2  (with  the  exception  of  the  last  21  lines),  3  (to  Flavius' 
entry),  v,  2,  3,  5 ;  and  perhaps  III,  4  and  v,  1  also  contain  some  of  his 
work.  The  tone  of  in,  1  is  that  of  the  Revengers  Tragedy,  but  it  is 
also  that  of  portion  of  Lear. 

How  Shakspere  came  to  be  concerned  with  another  author  in  the 
production  of  this  play  may  be  variously  accounted  for.  It  has  been 
supposed  by  some  to  have  been  primarily  the  work  of  the  other  writer, 
fitted  for  the  stage  by  Shakspere  ;  while  some  have  regarded  it  as  a  play 
of  Shakspere's  pieced  out  by  the  other.  That  it  has  been  twice  written, 
or  else  patched  by  one  on  the  ground-work  of  another  is  evident.  The 
failure  of  the  poet  and  painter  to  enter  in  iv,  3  after  Apemantus  has 
announced  their  approach  (their  visit  to  Timon  not  occurring  till  the 
next  act)  is  a  good  proof;  and  others  are — the  entry  of  Lucius,  Lucullus, 
and  Sempronius  in  I,  2,  whereas  the  conversation  (evidently  theirs)  is 
carried  on  by  1st,  2nd,  and  3rd  lords ;  the  substitution  of  three  unnamed 
lords  for  these  three  in  in,  6;  the  dropping  of  Ventidius  after  Act  I, 
though  in  in,  3  he  is  spoken  of  as  having  been  tried,  and  though  in 
Act  I  Shakspere  has  plainly  shown  an  intention  to  make  a  feature  of 
his  gross  ingratitude ;  and  the  vagueness  of  in,  5,  which  does  not  tell 
us  whom  Alcibiades  is  defending  (anyone  reading  the  scene  alone  would 
naturally  suppose  that  it  was  a  character  in  the  play  who  was  referred 
to).  There  is  much  confusion  also  as  to  the  servants  of  Timon,  and 
probably  the  Servilius  of  n,  2,  in,  2,  and  in,  5,  is  identical  with  the 
Lucilius  of  I,  1,  the  original  author's  name  for  the  character  having  been 
misread  by  the  reviser  of  the  play.  Otherwise  it  is  difficult  to  see  why 
the  named  servant  Lucilius  should  be  dropped,  and  so  many  unnamed 
ones  take  his  place.  In  n,  1  and  n,  2  Caphis  is  used  as  a  creditor's 
servant:  in  in,  4  three  other  named  and  three  unnamed  servants  of 
creditors  appear.  Of  these  three  unnamed  ones,  one  is  a  servant  of 
Lucius,  and  two  are  servants  of  Varro.  One  of  the  latter  appears  again 
in  II,  2,  where  is  also  an  unnamed  servant  of  Isidore.  Neither  Varro 
nor  Isidore  is  a  character,  the  only  creditor  who  appears  being  a  senator, 
the  master  of  Caphis,  who  enters  in  n,  1,  and  whom  his  servant  is,  in 
II,  2,  unable  to  name.  The  death  of  Timon  too  is  singular,  taking  place 
off  the  stage,  and  the  information  given  in  regard  to  it  being  sudden 
and  unexpected. 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  197 

Twelfth  Night  is  wholly  the  work  of  Shakspere,  but  is  clearly  of 
more  than  one  date.  The  last  eighteen  lines  of  III,  1  and  portions  of 
V,  1  (particularly  the  sixteen  verses  beginning  '  I'll  sacrifice  the  lamb ') 
are  fragments  of  the  earlier  version,  and  there  are  many  signs  of  altera- 
tion— notably  the  confusion  as  to  the  title  of  Orsino,  and  the  two 
allusions  to  a  difficulty  between  Malvolio  and  the  unnamed  sea-captain, 
leading  to  the  latter's  incarceration.  That  it  was  performed  privately 
in  February  1601 — 2  is  known,  and  there  is  a  certain  allusion  in  ill,  2 
to  a  map  published  in  1599.  It  is  possible  also  that  this  scene  contains 
a  reference  to  Coke's  baiting  of  Ralegh  at  the  latter's  trial  in  November 
1603.  If  so,  this  must  have  been  an  insertion  after  the  first  production 
of  the  revised  version  of  the  play,  for  the  manner  of  the  earliest  portions 
is  obviously  of  very  much  earlier  date  than  1599.  How  early  they  may 
be  cannot  be  said  with  any  certainty,  but  it  is  to  be  noted  that  ill,  1 
contains  what  seems  to  be  a  very  clear  reference  to  Tarleton,  whose 
house  was  the  Tabor  next  to  St  Benet's  Church,  in  Gracious  Street. 
The  famous  clown  died  in  1588,  a  date  which  most  of  the  critics  will 
deem  far  too  early  for  even  the  first  draft  of  this  splendid  fruit  of 
Shakspere's  genius ;  but  probability  is  lent  to  the  belief  that  in  its  first 
form  it  dates  back  to  the  time  of  Tarleton  by,  firstly,  the  Clown's 
reference  to  the  transmigration  of  souls,  the  Pythagorean  theory  having 
been  revived  by  Bruno  on  his  visit  t®  England,  1583 — 5 ;  secondly,  the 
similarity  of  the  usage  of  Viola  by  the  Duke  to  Julia's  employment  by 
Proteus  on  his  love-errands  (Two  Gentlemen);  and,  thirdly,  the  re- 
semblance of  the  scheme  of  the  play,  with  the  wonderful  likeness  of 
Viola  and  Sebastian,  to  that  of  the  Comedy  of  Errors,  with  the  twinness 
of  the  Antipholi.  Comedy  of  Errors  dates  certainly  no  later  than 
1593 — 4,  and  may  date  much  earlier,  and  there  is  good  reason  to  group 
it  and  the  first  version  of  Twelfth  Night  amongst  Shakspere's  very 
earliest  productions. 

As  You  Like  It  is  also  entirely  Shakespere's.  It  has  undergone 
some  revision,  as  shown  by  an  allusion  in  iv,  1  to  the  act  of  1605  '  to 
restrain  the  abuses  of  players '  and  by  a  certain  amount  of  confusion 
between  the  characters.  It  is  a  marriage  play,  scamped  or  altered 
towards  the  finish. 

Much  Ado  also  is  of  single  authorship,  but  of  more  than  one  period. 
There  are  many  signs  of  alteration  and  abbreviation.  In  I,  1  Claudio's 
uncle  is  spoken  of  as  if  he  were  to  be  a  character,  but  he  is  never 
introduced;  in  the  next  scene  Antonio's  son  is  similarly  mentioned 
as  if  he  were  a  character,  but  he  too  never  appears ;  in  n,  3  Claudio 


198  Shakspere's  Plays:   an  Examination 

speaks  of  Beatrice  as  Leonato's  daughter;  and  the  George  Seacoal 
of  in,  3  becomes  Francis  Seacoal  in  in,  5.  The  play  certainly  dates 
prior  to  August  1600,  when  it  was  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register 
for  publication.  Some  critics  assert  that  it  was  not  in  existence 
when  Meres'  work  was  published,  because  it  is  not  mentioned 
therein,  and  others  argue  that  it  must  be  identical  with  the  play 
that  Meres  calls  Love's  Labours  Won.  Thus  the  one  set  dates  it 
between  1598  and  1600,  and  the  other  not  later  than  1597 — 8.  It  is  in 
favour  of  the  latter  view  that  Love's  Labour's  Won  must  have  been  a 
companion  play  to  Love's  Labours  Lost,  and  that  Much  Ado  approaches 
more  nearly  to  the  scheme  of  that  play  than  any  other  Shaksperian 
drama,  but  it  is  against  it  that  the  title  of  Love's  Labour's  Won  would 
not  be  particularly  appropriate.  The  Tempest  and  the  Taming  of  the 
Shrew  have  both  been  suggested  as  identical  with  Love's  Labour's  Won, 
As  You  Like  It  has  been  hinted  at,  and  Twelfth  Night,  the  claims  of 
which  do  not  seem  to  have  been  advocated,  is  likelier  than  any  of  them  ; 
but  the  majority  of  the  critics  have  pinned  their  faith  to  All's  Well. 
However  that  may  be,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  Shakspere's  adopting 
as  the  hero  of  a  play  at  so  late  a  date  as  1598  so  unattractive  a  person 
as  Claudio,  one  capable  of  behaving  with  the  callousness  that  he  exhibits 
after  Hero's  supposed  death.  The  mature  Shakspere  would  scarcely 
have  allowed  one  whom  he  wished  his  audience  to  respect  to  treat  so 
lightly  a  death  for  which  he  was  in  a  sense  responsible  and  to  outrage 
the  feelings  of  the  public  by  intimating  that  he  looked  forward  with 
greater  pleasure  to  the  winning  of  his  second  bride  than  he  had  done  to 
his  union  with  the  one  he  had  lost.  The  contrast  between  the  earlier 
and  the  later  styles  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  in,  1  or  portion  of 
V,  4  with  the  bulk  of  iv,  1  or  V,  1.  The  latter  should  certainly  not  date 
later  than  1598,  while  the  former  is  ascribable  to  1592  or  thereabouts. 
That  this  is  likely  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  one  of  Julius'  '  Plays 
derived  from  English  Sources'  (1594)  has  the  same  plot. 

Of  The  Merry  Wives  there  is  but  one  scene— iv,  1 — the  authorship 
of  which  is  doubtful ;  but  there  is  much  reason  to  regard  the  play  as  of 
more  than  one  date,  and  there  are  many  matters  in  connection  with  it 
of  which  no  satisfactory  explanation  can  be  given.  The  character  of  the 
joke  played  on  the  Host  by  Caius  and  Evans  is  very  indistinct,  due 
probably  to  curtailment.  Mrs  Quickly  is  certainly  not  the  Dame 
Quickly  of  Henry  IV  and  Henry  V ;  and  Shallow,  though  deliberately 
connected  with  the  Shallow  of  2  Henry  IV,  does  not  seem  the  same. 
In  II,  3  the  Host  addresses  Shallow  as  '  Master  Guest,'  though  otherwise 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  199 

there  is  nothing  to  show  that  he  was  staying  at  the  Garter.  Of  the 
quarrel  between  him  and  Falstaff  which  is  the  main  subject  of  the 
opening  scene  nothing  is  heard  afterwards.  Part  of  iv  4  seems  to  be  of 
early  date,  and  perhaps  the  best  way  of  accounting  for  the  above- 
mentioned  facts  is  by  supposing  that  Shakspere,  given  scant  notice  (so 
says  the  tradition ;  and  indeed  the  construction  of  the  play  shows  many 
signs  of  haste)  to  provide  a  comedy  showing  Falstaff  in  love,  utilised  for 
the  purpose  the  ground-work  of  an  old  play  of  his  own,  boldly  renamed 
some  of  the  characters  with  the  names  of  persons  in  the  Henry  IV  plays, 
and  was  not  very  careful  to  fit  them  to  their  requirements.  It  is  also 
in  accordance  with  this  scheme  that  Fenton  is  (in  in,  2)  made  a  former 
companion  of  Prince  Hal  and  Poins.  (It  is  noteworthy  that  the  text  of 
the  original  quarto  states  nothing  of  the  sort,  and  also  that  it  gives  no 
hint  of  the  identity  of  Shallow  with  Sir  Thomas  Lucy.)  The  play 
contains  an  allusion  suggesting  a  date  not  much  later  than  1592,  and  it 
may  be  the  Jealous  Comedy  acted  by  Lord  Strange's  men  at  the  Rose 
in  January  1592 — 3.  The  likeliest  view  is  that  it  was  rewritten  into 
the  form  which  is  supposed  to  be,  but  is  indeed  very  imperfectly, 
represented  in  the  quarto  of  1602  (which  contains  work  not  Shakspere's), 
and  that  the  play  underwent  still  further  revision  subsequently,  for  the 
folio  version  contains  allusions  to  events  of  1603  and  1605.  It  may  be 
added  too  that  there  is,  as  has  been  pointed  out  by  Mr  Fleay,  an  extra- 
ordinary resemblance  between  the  Host  of  this  play  and  the  Host  of  the 
Merry  Devil.  It  must  be  supposed  that  this  is  due  to  imitation,  for  it 
is  hard  to  see  Drayton's  hand  in  the  Merry  Wives  or  Shakspere's  in  the 
Merry  Devil,  although  there  are  other  curious  circumstances  connecting 
the  two  plays.  It  may  perhaps  be  worthy  of  note  that  in  iv,  3  and  iv,  6 
of  the  Merry  Wives  the  Host  does  not  speak  in  quite  the  same  vein  as 
elsewhere. 

E.  H.  C.  OLIPHANT. 
LONDON. 

(To  be  concluded.} 


ZWEI  ALTFBANZOSISCHE    MABIENGEBETE. 

II. 

CE   SONT   LES   XV  JOES   NOSTRE   DAME  SAINTE   MARIE. 

fol.  176  r.      I     Douce  dame  tresglorieusse, 

Mere  de  Deu,  leans  espouse, 

Marie  mere  tresmillee, 

Ami'e  coraument  amee 
5  De  celui  qui  cet  bien  amer, 

Tresluissant  estoille  de  mer, 

Par  cui  nos  tuit  avons  lumiere : 

Voirement  la  joie  premiere 

Que  tu  heus  do  dous  Jhesu, 
10  Le  tuen  trescoral  fil  ce  fui, 

Quant  Gabriel  o  grant  clartei 

De  par  lo  roi  de  majestei 
fol.  176  v.  Te  dit  lo  salut  amerous, 

Le  beau,  le  dous,  lo  saverous 
15  Et  dit  que  do  saint  Esperit 

Conceveroiez  sans  respit 

Et  anfanteroiez  sans  poinne, 

Vierge  pure  de  grace  ploinne, 

Lo  savaor  de  tot  le  monde. 
20  Tresdouce,  an  cui  toz  biens  habonde, 

Var.     1  T.  doulce  d.  gloriouse.          2  Meire  D.  serour.  3  meire  t.  honoree. 

4  couraiousement  aim.  5  b.  sceit  ameir.  6  luisans  meir.  7  Per  c.  trestuit. 
8  Donneis  moi  la  j.  p.  9  eus  dou  doulz.  10  Que  li  tiens  courtoiz  filz  fut. 

11  ot.  12  De  part  lou  roy  de  majesteit.  13  dist  lou  salus  amerouz.  14  Lou 
biaulz  lou  doulz  lou  saverouz.  15  dist  dou.  16  Coneeverois  s.  nulz  r.  17  E. 
se  1'anfanteroies.  18  Sens  corrompre  de  neirs  ne  voinne.  19  Lou  salveour  de 
tout  lou  m.  20  Tresdoulce  en  c.  touz  b.  habunde. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  201 

Par  la  joie  qu'adont  heus, 
Que  tant  humbleraent  receus 
Qu'apre"s  si  treshaute  novelle 
Te  vosis  appeller  ancelle, 
25  Toi  depri  je,  tresdebonaire, 
Que  tu  adroice  mon  afaire 
Et  m'espurge  do  mal  d'orguil 
Dont  trop  sovent  santir  me  suel. 

II     Vierge  dame,  pure  pucelle, 
30  Tresdouce  dame,  demoiselle, 
fol.  177  r.  Volontiers  me  deliteroie  # 

An  la  toie  seconde  joie : 

Quant  santis  de  ton  fil  Jhesu 

Que  tu  avoiez  conceu 
35  San  mil  charnel  atochement, 

Et  que  fui  cil  plenierement 

Sentis  en  toi,  roine  eslite, 

La  vertu  dou  saint  Esperite, 

Et  que  tez  ventres  virginaus, 
40  Que  tant  estoit  purs  et  leans, 

Dou  mervoilleus  concentement 
•  Centi  le  dous  angrossement, 

Et  que  tes  cuers  et  t'arme  ardoient 

Dou  feu  d'amor  et  enflammoient. 
45  Douce  dame,  en  la  remembransce 

De  la  jousse  cognoissance 

Que  tu  heus  de  ton  signor 

An  celle  delitousse  ardor 
fol.  177  v.  Te  pri  je,  tresleauz  Marie, 

50  Que  me  garde  do  mal  d'anvie. 

Ill     Damoiselle,  tresdouce  sainte, 
Douce  vierge,  pucelle  encainte, 

21  Pour  1.  j.  qu'aidonc  eus.        22  Ke.        23  Car  a.  sai  haulte  n.         24  T.  volcis 
appelleir  a.  25  Te  requiers.  26  entendes  ai  m.  27  me  gette  dou  maul 

d'orguel.  28  sovant  sentir.  29  Doulce  meire,  p.  p.  30  T.  gentils  d.  et  dam. 
31  En.  32  Volent.  33  sentis  d.  t.  filz.  34  1'avoies  conceut.  35  Sens 
nulz  charnelz  atouchements.  36  si  priveement.  37  royne  eslute.  39  E.  t. 
v.  virgineaulz.  40  Qui  loiaulz.  41  mervillouz  concevement.  42  Sentit  lou 
doulz  engroxement.  43  Ke  ton  corps  e.  t'airme  ardoit.  44  d'amour  e.  enflai- 
moit.  45  Doulce  d.  e.  remanbrance.  46  joiouse  cognissance.  47  eus  signour. 
48  Per  c.  delitouse  amour.  49  loiaul  aim'e.  50  dou  maul  d'env.  51  doulce 
et  s.  52  Doulce  v.  tres  doulce  dame. 


202  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

La  toie  tierce  joie  fui, 

Que  tu  heus  dou  douz  Jhesu, 
55  Quant  Helyzabeth  visitas 

Et  humblement  la  saluas. 

Celle  resut  le  tien  salu, 

Plainne  fui  de  tote  vertu 

Et  li  enfes  qu'elle  portoit; 
60  Et  quant  se'us  qu'elle  savoit 

Que  tu  la  mere  Deu  estoiez 

Et  que  tu  le  fil  Deu  portoiez 

Et^  humblement,  par  grant  honor, 

T'apella  mere  son  signer: 
65  De  la  joie  qu'adont  heus 

A  chanter  ton  cuer  esmeus 
fol.  178  r.  Et  si  fe'is  chanson  novelle, 

Que  Ton  magnificat  appelle; 

Pour  ce  que  an  1'avespremant 
70  Do  mont  par  ton  anfantemant 

Nos  commansa  a  ajorner, 

Le  fait  sainte  Eglisse  chanter 

Chascun  jor  per  election 

A  vespre  per  devotion. 
75  Or  te  pri  je,  dame  jousse, 

Per  ceste  joie  delitousse 

Que  tu  de  toute  ire  m'efface 

Si  qu'a  Jhesu  ton  chier  fil  place. 

IV     Douce  dame,  flors  coloree, 
80  Tu  soiez  totjors  honoree ; 
Fille  ton  pere,  amie,  suers, 
La  quarte  joe  perce  cuer : 
Ce  fut  quant  mervoilleusement 

53  fut.  54  Ke  t.  eus  d.  roy  J.  55  El.  visitais.  56  lai  saluaiz.  57  Et 
elle  lors  de  ton  salut.  58  Emplit  de  tres  sainte  vertut.  60  sceus.  61  lumiere 
de  D.  estoies.  62  qu.  lou  filz  de  D.  pourtoies.  63  H.  et  per  g.  amour. 

64  T'apellait  meire  ton  signour.  65  qu'adonc  eus.  66  De  chanteir  os  t.  c.  esmeut. 
68  Qu'ele  m.  69  ceu  dame  a  1'avesprement.  70  Dame  at.  71  Nous 

comansait  a  ajourneir.          72  Nous  f.  saincte  esglise  chanteir.  73  Chescun  jour 

p.  devocion.  74  vespres  yceste  chanson.  76  celle  j.  delitouse.  77  touz  pechies 
me  gairde.  78  Que  ai  t.  filz  puisse  plaire.  79  Dame  d'onour,  flour  c.  80  soies 
touz  jours.  81  F.  deu  meire  a.  suer.  82  fehlt.  83  Se  f.  q.  mervillouse- 

ment. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  203 

De  toi  nesqui  virginal  merit, 
fol.  178  v.       85  Sans  nulle  poinne  et  sans  pechie", 

Li  glorious  rois  de  pitie. 

Douce  dame,  quel  joie  avoiez 

Quant  tu  corporelment  veoiez 

Le  biau,  le  douz,  le  desirrei, 
90  Que  ix  moix  avoiez  pourtei 

An  ton  trespur,  precious  cors ! 

Antre  tes  brais  et  tes  tressors, 

Dont  te  pouoies  aasier, 

Sovent  et  tandrement  baisier 
95  Et  acoler  le  dous  anfant. 

Par  celle  joie  si  tresgrant 

Te  pri  je,  dame,  que  m'aide, 

Delivre  moi  de  tote  accide, 

C'est  de  toute  male  paresce 
ioo  Et  de  toute  vainne  tristesse. 

V     Sainte  roine,  simple  ancelle, 

Noble  norrice,  fors  pucelle, 
fol.  179  r.  Ensoigne  moi,  darne,  et  amer 

La  quinte  joie  et  a  center 
105  Des  pastors  et  de  lor  venue 

Quant  la  clartei  orent  ve'ue 

Et  an  Tore  de  1'enfanter 

Oirent  les  anges  chanter, 

Qui  anoncerent  liement 
i  to  La  joe  de  eel  nassement; 

Et  as  ensoignes  que  il  virent 

Corrurent  ve'oir  et  si  virent 

Tot  ansi  com  dit  lor  estoit; 

Et  tes  cuers,  dame,  que  fasoit  ? 

84  Nasquit  d.  toy  v.       85  Sens  senz  pechie"s.       86  gloriouz  pitiet.       87  Doulce 
d.  queil  j.  avoies.  88  Q.  corporeilment  lou  veoies.         89  Lou  belz,  lou  doulz,  lo 

desireit.  90  mois  avoies  pourteit.  91  En  t.  t.  doulz  p.  corps.  92  Dedens 
t.  b.  iert  t.  trezors.  93  pooies  aaisier.  94  Soventes  foiz  et  a  baisier. 

95  escolleir  lou  doulz  enf.          96  Que  c.          97  T.  p.  d.  qu.  tu  m'ayde.  98  Et 

m.  d.  d.  tout.  99  malle  peresse.  100  mallet.  101  Haulte  dame.  102  N. 
royne  tres  forte  p.  103  Ensigne  m.  d.  a  ameir.  104  recordeir.  105  Dez 

pastours  e.  d.  lour  v.  106  lai  clarteit.  107  a  1'oure  de  1'anfanteir.  108  aingres 
chanteir.  109  Si  lour  none,  lieement.  110  naiss.  Ill  des  signes  que  il  y  v. 
112  fehlt.  113  Tout  ensi  lour.  114  tez. 


204  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

115  II  se  delitoit  an  grans  joiez 
De  ces  chansons  que  tu  oioies, 
Tresjoi'ssoient  le  cuer: 
Daine,  si  me  fai  geter  fuer 
L'ardor  de  male  covoitisse 
120  Par  ceste  joie  qu'a  aprisse, 
fol.  179  v.  Et  si  estin  an  moi  le  vice 

De  la  grant  puor  d'avarice. 

VI     Sainte  pucelle,  estoile  clere, 

Riche  dame,  trespie  mere, 
125  Tresdebonaire,  or  me  desploie 

L'encoisson  de  ta  siste  joie : 

Ce  fui,  dame,  quant  li  iii  roi 

Devotement  et  sans  desroi 

S'an  vindrent  devers  oriant 
130  Et  per  1'estoile  soulement, 

Qui  per  mirascle  les  menoit, 

Vindrent  en  Bethleem  tot  droit 

Pour  ton  bel  anfant  aorer; 

Et  por  1'anfant  plus  honorer, 
135  De  lor  tressors,  que  orent  overs, 

II  offrirent  iii  dons  divers 

Per  mout  tresgrant  senefiance, 

Trespreciousse,  sans  dotanse. 
fol.  180  r.  En  grant  joie  estoit  tes  corages, 

140  Toz  avoiez  les  avantages, 

Miez  savoiez,  que  ne  fasoient, 

Ceu  que  lor  don  senefioient. 

Grant  joie  avoiez  de  Tenor 

Qu'a  ton  fil  et  a  ton  signor 
145  Faisoient  par  lor  bel  present; 

115  en  grant  joie.  116  Et  ces  chouses  toutes  nettoies.  117  Et  em- 

baitoies  en  ton  cuer.  118  or  f.  de  rnoy  geteir  fuers.  119  Ardour  d.  malle 

covoitise.  120  Per  yc.  j.  que  j'ai  aprise.  121  esting  en  moy  lou  v.  122  tres 
g  puour.  123  cleire.  124  meire.  125  debonnaire.  126  La  chanson  d. 
tai  sexte.  127  fut  troiz  rois.  128  sens  desrois.  129  Se  mirent.  131  Que 
miraicle.  132  tout.  133  beil  aoreir.  134  pour  honoreir.  135  lour  tresors 
qu'orent  oveirt.  136  Si  o.  dyv.  137  Et  a  moult  gr.  138  preciouse  sens 

doubtence.  139  A  g.  j.  fut  couraiges.  140  Tous  avoies  1.  avantaiges.  141  Mieuls 
saivoies  qu'il  ne  fais.  142  lez  dons.  143  avoies  de  1'onour.  144  Que  a  t. 

filz  e.  t.  signour.         145  per  honour  p. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  205 

Et  por  lor  dous  aorement 
Me  garde  trestote  ma  vie 
Do  vilain  mal  de  glotenie. 

VII     Roisne  de  tresbone  color, 
150  Que  sans  pechie  et  sans  dolor 

Teus  an  ta  sainte  gecine 

Quarante  jors,  sainte  roisne : 

II  n'avoit  qu'aspurgier  en  toi, 

Mais  por  bien  acomplir  la  loi 
155  A  Tample  ton  anfant  portas 

Et  a  Tauter  lou  presentas. 
fol.  180  v.  Dame,  quant  tu  1'e'us  offert 

A  Symeon  tot  an  apert, 

Quant  antre  ces  bras  lo  resut 
160  Anunsa  ceu  qu'anoncier  dut 

Et  s'escria  hardiemant: 

'Ciz  est  lumiere  de  la  gent 

Et  gloire  dou  peuple  Israel.' 

Tresdouce,  ceu  t'estoit  mout  bel 
165  Quant  tu  oiz  qu'ansi  parloit, 

Et  sainte  Anne  lo  tesmonnoit ; 

Ceu  te  dona,  vierge  saintisme, 

De  ton  fil  la  joie  septisme. 

Par  iceste  tresgrant  liosse 
170  Et  par  la  toie  grant  largesse, 

Vierge  noite,  vierge  trespure, 

Garde  mon  cuer  de  toute  ordure 

Et  de  toute  deshonestei. 

Dame,  trop  mavais  ai  estei; 
175  Fai  moi  anvers  ton  til  tel  plait 

Que  me  pardoint  ce  qu'ai  meffait. 

146  pour  lou  biaulz  aornement.  147  gairde  trestoute.  148  Dou  glout. 

149  Rose  d.  t.  bonne  colour.  150  sens  pechiet  dolours.  151  Geus  en  la  s. 

gessine.  153  purgier  e.  toy.  154  Maiz  pour  b.  espurgier  1.  loy.  155  Au 

temple  t.  enfant  portaiz.  156  auteil  presentaiz.  158  S.  lou  tint  en  a. 

159  en  ses  brais  lou  receut.  160  Anunsait  anuncier  deut.  161  s'escriait  moult 
haultement.  162  Cist  e.  li  mireurs  des  gens.  163  pueple.  164  doulce,  yceti 
e.  moult  beil.  165  oys  qu'anci.  166  lou  tesmoignoit.  167  Se  t.  donnait 

dame  saintime.  168  filz  septime.  169  ycelle  grande  lyesse.  170  per 

grande  proesse.  171  Virginitei  v.  172  Gardeiz  m.  corps  d.  toutes  ordures. 

173  toutes  deshonesteiz.  174  j'ai  t.  malvaise  esteit.  175  envers  filz  mon  p. 

176  Qui  m.  perdoint  touz  mes  meffaiz. 


206  Zwei  altfranzosische  Manengebete 

VIII     Mere,  mere,  pucelle  tanre, 
fol.  181  r.  Fai  moi,  tresdouce  dame,  entendre 

De  ton  fil  1'uitisme  lioisse, 
1 80  Ou  avoiez  si  grant  destresce, 
Quant  fuis  en  Egypte  exillie 
Por  Herode  et  por  sa  mesnie, 
Qui  ne  queroient  fors  la  vie 
De  ton  anfant  par  grant  anvie. 
185  Mais,  dame,  il  te  fui  mout  bel 
Quant  an  la  terre  d'Israel 
Retornas  do  pais  estrange 
Par  I'amonestement  de  1'ange, 
Qui  non£a  que  cil  mors  estoit 
190  Qui  la  mort  de  Fanfant  queroit. 
A  recor  de  ceste  grant  joie 
Ton  confort,  dame,  a  moi  anvoie, 
fol.  181  v.  De  toz  rues  pechiez  me  delivre 

Et  me  fai  si  netement  vivre 
195  Que  je  puisse  par  bien  ovrer, 
Mon  tresdous  pais  recovrer. 

IX     Sainte  roine  coronee, 

Belle  de  cors  bien  aornee, 

La  nosme  joie  fui  mout  grans, 
200  Dame,  quant  tez  fiz  ot  xii  ans; 

II  fui  mou  tresbez  damoises, 

Otor  ala  li  bons,  li  bez, 

An  Jherusalem  a  la  feste. 

Premiers  i  he'us  grant  moleste; 
205  Par  iii  jors  perdis  ton  anfant 

Et  apres  lo  trovas  ceant 

Antre  les  mastres  sagement, 

177  Belle  meire  p.  tenre.  178  doulce.  179  filz  1'uitime  lyesse.  180  Ou 
tu  avoies  gr.  181  fus.  182  Pour  maignie.  183  Qu'il  n.  quar.  184  chier 
filz  et  per  envie.  185  Maiz  fut  moult  beil.  186  en  Israhel.  187  Retournais 
dou  payx  estrainge.  188  Etperangre.  189  anunsaitq.  mors  estoient.  190  que- 
roient. 191  retourneir  d.  c.  j.  192  nous  envoie.  193  De  nos  anemis  nous  d. 
194  se  nous  f.  saintement  v.  195  nous  puissiens  per  b.  ouvreir.  196  Nostre 

doulz  paix  recouvreir.  197  Haulte  royne  coronnee.  198  d.  touz  biens  a.  199  Lai 
nuevime  j.  fut  grant.  200  filz.  201  fut  moult  t.  biaulz  damoiselz.  202  Otoy 
aloit  li  boiiis  li  belz.  203  En  lai.  204  en  eus.  205  Per  treiz  jours  enf. 

206  pues  lou  trouvais  tu  scant.         207  Entre  1.  maistres  saigem. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  207 

Oioit  les  antantivement 

Et  si  sustilmant  opposoit 
210  Que  li  puples  s'an  mervoilloit; 
fol.  182  r.  Dont  si  tresgrans  et  sage  entente 

Apparoit  an  telle  jovente ! 

Grant  joie  heus  do  retro ver, 

De  1'escouter,  dou  ramener. 
215  Tresdouce,  par  celle  grant  joie 

Ramoinne  moi  a  droite  voie 

Et  si  me  fai,  tresdebonaire, 

Par  san  parler  et  par  san  taire. 

Roisne  de  virginitei, 
220  Par  celle  grant  humilitei 

Que  tez  fiz  si  tresdoucement 

S'an  vint  a  ton  commandement 

Humblement  me  fai  obeir 

A  quanque  lui  vient  a  plasir. 

X     Tresesmeree,  treseslite, 

La  dessisme  n'et  pas  petite, 
Quant  as  noces  Archetreclin 
Fit  tes  dous  fiz  de  1'eve  vin 
fol.  182  v.  Par  sa  devine  poestei, 

230  Dont  primes  ot  manifestei 
A  ses  deciples  de  sa  gloire. 
Toi  pri  en  la  sainte  mermoire 
De  eel  bel  mirascle  devin 
Et  de  la  plantei  dou  bon  vin, 
235  Dont  furent  tuit  rasacie", 

Qu'aiez  de  moi  tresgrant  pitie\ 
Dame,  mes  cors  est  si  malades, 
Plains  de  velin  et  frois  et  fades ! 

208  Qui  tant  bien  et  esseneement.  209  tant  subtilment.  210  pueples  s'en 
mervilloit.  211  Que  si  grant  sens,  si  grant  e.  212  Apparissoit  en  teil  juvente. 
213  eus  dou  retourneir.  214  Et  qu'avec  toi  vot  aleir.  215  doulce  per  ycelie  j. 
216  Rameneiz  moy.  ,  217  Si  nous  faites.  218  Per  sens  parleir  et  per  sens  t. 

219  Royne  de  virginiteit.  220  Per  humiliteit.  221  filz  doulcement.  222  Se 
mist  en  t.  223  nous  f.  obeyr.  224  Et  lui  en  plaisir.  326  Lai  dexime  n'est 
p.  petite.  227  archedeclin.  228  Fist  tez  doulz  filz  de  1'yawe.  229  Per  sai 
tres  digne  poesteit.  230  Tout  premier  ot  manifesteit.  231  dissiples.  232  Tres 
doulce  a  la  s.  memoire.  233  belz  miraicle.  234  lai  planteit  boin.  235  D.  il 
f.  trestuit  haucie"s.  236  Aies  de  nous  t.  g.  pitiet.  237  nos  cuers  sont  malaides. 
238  froiz  et  frailes. 


208  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

Dame,  de  mes  maus  me  delivre 
240  Et  me  fai  si  netement  vivre 
Totjors  an  droite  charitei 
Et  me  garde  en  bone  santei. 

XI     Douce  dame  tressecoirauble, 

Tresbenigne,  tresamiauble, 
245  Ques  hons  porroit  a  ce  monter 

Qu'il  se'ut  dire  ne  center 
fol.  183  r.  La  grant  plantei  et  la  largesce 

De  la  toie  onzime  liesce  ! 

II  n'estoit  se  mervoille  non, 
250  Tant  estoit  bel  siu  cermon 

Et  tantes  mervoilles  fasoit : 

Les  paralitiques  sanoit, 

Li  musel  estoient  mondei 

Et  li  avugle  ralumei ; 
255  Les  contrais  fasoit  droit  aler, 

Les  sors  oir,  les  mus  parler, 

II  sanoit  toutes  maladiez 

Et  as  mors  randoit  il  la  vie 

Et  per  lou  sien  commencement 
260  Cessoient  la  mers  et  li  vent. 

Les  cors  plains  dou  saint  Esperite 

Randoit  et  sains  et  sauf  et  quite 

Et  .v.  mil  hommes  repleni 

De  .v.  pains  qu'il  lor  departi; 
fol.  183  v.     265  Et  tant  autres  mirascles  grans 

Fasoit  comme  li  rois  poissans. 

Bien  te  de'us,  dame,  esjoir 

De  ceu  veoir  et  de  1'oir. 

Per  ceste  joe  si  pleniere 

239  Doulce  de  touz  maulz  d.  240  f.  que  nous  soiens  tuit  yvres.  241  Dou 
vin  de  sainte  chairiteit.  242  Qui  nous  gairt  an  droite  santeit.  243  Tres  cour- 
toise,  tres  secourrauble.  245  Qui  se  poroit  ai  toy  monteir.  246  Qui  poi'st 

panceir  et  conteir.  247  clarteit  lairgesse.  248  joie  et  o.  Hesse.  249  n'i  ot 
mervelle.  250  estoient  belz  ses  sermons.  251  Que  lez  malaides  garissoit. 

252  Et  tant  de  miraicles  fasoit.  253  musiaus  en  e.  mondeis.  254  aveugles 

enlumineis.  255  Lez  aleir.  256  Lez  xours  oyr  parleir.  257  garissoit  t. 

malaidies.  258  az  ren.  lai.  259  p.  son  soul  comandement.  260  lez.  m.  vens. 
261  corps  des  malvais  e.  262  II  les  ren.  et  s.  et  quittes.  263  homes  raemplit. 
264  p.  d'orge  qu'il  partit.  265  d'aultres  miraicles  grant.  266  Faisoit  com  li 

tres  poissant.       267  devies  d.  renjoir.       268  En  son  v.  venir  oyr.       269  plainniere. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  209 

270  Te  pri  je,  douce  dame  chiere, 
Que  ton  dous  fil  vers  moi  apaie 

Dame,  je  a  tant  a  garir, 
A  monder  et  a  esclarcir, 
275  A  restorer  et  redrecier, 
A  delivrer  et  appasier 
Que  je  ne  sa  de  rnoi  que  dire 
Se  mirascle  n'i  fait  ci  Sire. 

XII     Tresdouce  de  tresgrant  honor 
280  Et  tresplainne  de  grant  amor, 
A  bien  orer  ansoingne  moi, 
A  panser  et  parler  de  toi, 
A  ta  douzime  joie  dire : 
fol.  184  r.  Premiers  heus  assez  mertire, 

285  Que  oncques  mere  tant  n'an  sosfri, 
Quant  veis  que  tez  fiz  sosfri 
En  soverainne  pacience 

IEt  en  merveilleusse  ignoscence 
Si  delirousse  passion 
290  Pour  la  notre  redemption. 

Trop  fui  tes  cuers  en  grant  destroit, 

Tu  savoiez  que  .     .     .     .  estoit, 

Que  il  lo  t'avoit  anuntie 

Et  comant  il  iert  sans  pechie 
295  Conceus  et  nes  et  nosriz 

Et  ces  biaus  fais  et  ses  biaus  diz 

Et  la  grant  purtei  de  ta  vie ; 

Et  quant  veis  que  par  anvie, 

Sans  achoison,  a  si  grant  tort, 
300  Fui  laidis  et  jugiez  a  mort 

Et  vilmant  an  croix  clofichiez, 

270  prions  nous  dame  tres  ch.  271  Ke  t.  doulz  filz  ver  nous  apaixes.  272  Qui 
nous  garisse  de  nos  plaies.  273  Tant  ait  en  nous  d.  a  g.  274  Et  a  mondeir  et 
aiclairir.  275  restoreir  et  a  redressier.  276  delivreir  et  a  paier.  277  saix 
vous.  278  miraicle  H  sires.  279  T.  digne  honour.  280  Tres  p.  de  tres  g. 
doulsour.  281  Bonne  a  servir  ensigne  moy.  282  pariceir  parleir  toy.  283  lai 
dous.  284  e'us  tant  de  merite.  285  C'onq.  femrne  t.  n'en  senti.  286  ton  filz 
souffri.  287  souv.  pat.  288  souverainne  ignorance.  289  La  dolerouse 

290  nostre  redempcion.  291  Tez  cors  fut  a  trop.  292  savoies  quelz  il  e.  293  Et 
coment  il  t'av.  nunciet.  294  Et  que  il  estoit  sens  p.  295  neiz  norris.  296  sez 
b.  faiz  et  sez  bialz  d.  297  purteit  sa.  298  per  env.  299  Sens  oquixon  et. 
300  Fut  1.  e.  jugies.  301  vilainnement  clofichie's. 

M.   L.  R.   IV.  14 


210  Ziuei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

fol.  184  v.  Dont  fui  tes  dous  cuers  tresperciez, 

Dont  fui  ta  douce  arme  navree 

De  celle  delirousse  espee 
305  Que  Symeon  t'avoit  contee. 

Mais  autrement  fui  restores 

Quant  li  tresdous  resuscita 

Et  quant  ces  amis  visita 

Et  geta  de  celle  occultei 
310  Qu'il  avoient  tant  estei. 

Par  celle  joie  mout  disauble 

Te  pri  je,  dame  delitauble, 

Fai  vers  ton  fil  por  moi  pri'ere 

Que  il  me  doint  an  tel  meniere 
315  La  soie  sainte  passion 

Recorder  par  devotion 

Qu'a  sa  joie  puisse  venir 

Et  an  lui  vivre  et  morir. 

XIII     Douce  dame,  sainte  Marie, 
fol.  185  r.      320  Vierge  pure,  vierge  florie, 

Toute  ma  joie  et  m'esperance 

Et  m'avouee,  car  m'avance 

Et  si  me  met  an  droite  voie 

De  dire  ta  tressime  joie : 
325  Ce  fui  quant  li  tres  dous  Jhesus 

Se  monta  sor  les  ciez  lassus, 

Mout  te  plaisoit,  dame,  a  veoir, 

Com  verais  Deus  par  son  pooir. 

Li  apostre  le  convoioient 
330  De  lor  iaux  tant  com  il  pooient. 

Certes,  dame,  grant  joie  avoiez 

Quant  tu  ton  fil  autel  veoiez 

An  si  tresmervoilleusse  gloire 

302  Adonc  fut  tez  c.  trespercies.  303  Done  fut  tai  doulce  airme.  304  dolo- 
rouse.  305  nunciet.  306  Maiz  haltement  refut  haulci^s.  307  doulz  resus- 
citait.  308  ses  visitait.  309  getait  obscurteit.  310  Ou  esteit.  311  Per 
c.  choze  veritauble.  313  a  t.  filz  pour  nous  proiere.  314  Qu'il  nous  d.  en  teil 
maniere.  316  Recourdeir  per  devocion.  317  Qu'ensa  gloire  puixiensv.  318  en. 
319  Sainte  et  pure  vierge  M.  320  va;llant.  321  Nostrej.  nostree.  322  Nostre 
voie  c.  nous  a.  323  nos  m.  en.  324  la  trezime.  325  fut  doulz.  326  Si 
montait  el  cielz.  327  Moult.  328  vrai  deu  et  per.  329,  330  fehlen. 

331  avoies.         332  tres  doulz  filz  veoies.        333  En  si  t.  mervillouse  joie. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  211 

Et  si  tresjoousse  vitoire 
335  Monter  si  tresapertemant 

Et  si  tressignori'ement. 

Sainte  honoree,  debonaire, 
fol.  185  v.  Sainte  dame,  que  porra  faire 

Ce  ci  de  moi  ne  te  sevient  ? 
340  A  ceste  joie  te  covient 

Que  tu  tresefforciement 

Prie  ton  fil  omnipotent 

Que  il  mon  cuer  traie  apres  lui, 

Qu'an  lui  soient  tuit  mi  refui, 
345  Qu'an  lui  soient  a  totjors 

Et  mui  delit  et  mes  amors. 

XIV     Belle  flors  de  virginitei, 

Aornee  d'umilitei, 

Pors  de  salut,  celle  de  miel, 
350  Tamples  d'amors,  porte  de  ciel, 

Mout  fuis  doucement  embrassee 

Et  hautement  enluminee 

An  ton  quatorzeme  delit 

Quant  santis  dou  saint  Esperit, 
355  Que  tez  dous  fiz  sor  ces  amis, 
fol.  186  r.  Si  com  il  lor  avoit  promis, 

Et  langue  de  feu  lor  tramit. 

Tresdouce  mere  Jhesucrist, 

Langue  de  feu  me  fai  avoir: 
360  Li  feus  alume  pour  ve'oir 

Et  li  feus  art  por  eschaufer 

Et  la  langue  est  por  parler. 

Dame,  se  je  par  ta  proiere 

Avoie  langue  an  tel  meniere 

334  a  si  joiouse  vict.  335  Monteir.          337  S.  Marie  d.          338  vierge  que 

poons  nous  f.  339  e  de  nous  y  ne  te  sov.  340  comant.  341  amerousement. 
342  Jhesu  o.  343  Qu'il  nos  cuers  traicet  envers.  344  nos  refus.  345  Et  en 
1.  touz  jours.  346  nos  d.  et  noz  confers.  347  flour  de  virginiteit.  348  umiliteit. 
349  Porte  de  Pair  porte  du  ciel.  350  Temple  enmiellee  de  miel.  351  Moult  fut 
doulcement  embraisee.  352  hault.  353  A  cest  quators.  354  sentiz.  355  Quant 
tez  doulz  filz  s.  ses  a.  356  lour  a.  permis.  357  En  langue  de  f.  lou.  358  doulce 
meire.  359  nous  faiz.  360  Le  feu  a.  tout  p.  361  airt  pour  eschaufeir. 

362  li  1.  parleir.         363  Doulce  s.  j.  per  tai.         364  L.  a.  de  celle  m. 

14—2 


212  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mamengebete 

365  Que  veraiement  m'allumat 

Et  par  sa  clartei  me  donast 

Bien  cognoistre  ma  petitesse 

Et  de  lui  la  tresgrant  largesce, 

Et  me  feist  bien  eschaufer 
370  Jhesucrist  et  mon  prome  amer, 

Et  me  feist  rnes  pechiez  dire 

Et  Deu  loer  et  moi  despire : 

Ainsi  porroie  je  venir, 
fol.  186  v.  Ma  douce  dame,  et  avenir 

375  A  la  toie  quinzeme  joie, 

Dont  volantiers  me  santiroie. 

XV     La  quinzeme  fut  la  darrene, 

Sor  toutes  autres  soverainne, 

Quant  de  cest  siegle  dus  passer. 
380  De  plusors  leus  fit  asambler 

Toz  les  apostres  an  celle  hore 

Deus  li  tiens  peres  sans  demoure 

Pour  faire  tot  a  sa  droiture 

Ton  obseque  et  ta  sepulture. 
385  En  Paradis  fuz  lors  portee 

Et  davant  ton  fil  presantee ; 

Do  ciel  te  fit  dame  et  roine 

Et  toute  riens  a  toi  encline. 

En  1'enor  de  toutes  cez  joiez 
390  Te  pri  je,  dame,  que  tu  m'oiez 

Mes  prieres,  mes  orisons, 
fol.  187  r.  Et  de  toutes  mes  mesprisons 

Me  fai  pardon  et  aquitanse 

Par  ta  pitie\  par  ta  poissanse, 
395  Si  que  rn'arme  soit  an  la  gloire 

De  Paradis  par  ton  aitoire. 

Amen  an  di,  douce  Marie, 

A  cui  je  rent  m'arme  et  ma  vie. 

365  vr.  enluminaist.         366  per  s.  clarteit  m.  donnaist.  367  De  b.  c.  mai  p. 

368  de  Deu  haultesce.           369  pechies.           370,  371  fehlen.  372  loweir  D.  et 

moy  d.            373  Enci  poroie  a  Deu  v.             374  doulce.  375  lai  t.  quinzime. 
376  volent.  me  senteroie. 


J.    PRIEBSCH  213 


ANMERKUNGEN. 

3  millee.  Weitere  Falle  von  Reduktion  des  betonten  und  unbetonten  ie  zu  i  im 
Lothring.  verzeichnen  Bonnardot  in  Bouteiller's  Ausg.  der  Guerre  de  Metz  (Paris, 
1875)  S.  440  und  Apfelstedt  im  Lothringischen  Psalter  (Heilbronn,  1881)  S.  XIX. 
P  hat  regelmassig  miellee. 

8  Es  fehlt  das  Verbum  des  Hauptsatzes,  das  fui  (v.  10)  nicht  sein  kann ;  s. 
Anna,  zu  v.  13  des  ersten  Textes.  P  und  O  vermeiden  die  Anakoluthie. 

19  savaor,  von  Godefroy  angefiihrt  nach  dieser  Stelle ;  vergl.  pugnaour  im  Orson 
de  Beauvais,  v.  2862,  und  pechaor  in  Li  Regres  Nostre  Dame,  Str.  275,  1  (Var.)  der 
Ausgabe  von  A.  Langfors  (Paris,  1907) ;  s.  dazu  die  Einleitung,  S.  xcvm. 

21  Par  statt  pour;  desgl.  v.  76,  96,  120,  169,  170,  215,  220,  269. 

26,  50  adroice,  garde.  tJber  diesen  Imperativ  in  einem  mit  que  eingeleiteten 
Satze  s.  Tobler,  Verm.  Beitr.,  r  (2.  Aufl.),  S.  25  ff. 

31,  32  in  O  umgestellt. 

36  L.  nach  O  :  Et  que  tu  ci  (  =  si)  p. ;  que  ersetzt  quant,  sowie  v.  39  und  43. 

40  Hs.  prous,  dariiber  purs ;  Hs.  Charleville :  surs  et  roiaus.     Que  =  qm. 

41  Besser  concevement  mit  O  und  Ch. 

43  corps  (cors)  vorzuziehen  mit  O  und  Ch.  arme  aus  anima  (Diss.)  altfr.  Hss. 
sehr  gelaufig;  s.  Meyer- Liibke,  Gr.,  i,  445  und  Korting,  Lat.-Roman.  Worterbuch, 
2.  Aufl.,  Art.  659. 

46,  75  jousse  (dreisilbig) ;  die  richtige  Schreibung  ist  joousse  334 ;  vergl.  joe  82, 
110  und  in  der  Uberschrift  (sonst  stets  zentralfr.  joie],  welche  reduzierte  Form  sich 
noch  haufig  im  Orson  de  B.  findet:  v.  364, 1928,  3390,  34 12  und  joant  'joyeux'  v.  3377. 

51  Ch  hat  t.  pieue  s. 

52  pucelle  enpainte  wurde  vom  Schreiber  von  O  fur  anstossig  befunden  und  dem 
Reime  zum  Trotz  in  tres  doulce  dame  geandert. 

57  Ch  :  Et  elle  lues  a  ton  salut. 

58  Ch  :  Fu  p.  d.  sainte  vertut. 
72—74  Ch  =  0. 

77,  78  Ch  :  Q.  t.  d.  t.  oevre  mauvaise  Me  delivre  si  que  a  Dieu  plaise.  Wegen  que 
mit  dem  Imp.  s.  Anna.  26. 

92  Statt  et  lies  ert. 

97  S.  Anm.  26. 

98,  99  Die  beiden  Verse  sind  von  Godefroy  angefiihrt  als  Belegstelle  fur  das  Wort 
aecide  'insouciance,  indolence,  paresse.'  S.  Korting,  Worterbuck,  112,  acedia  = ' miir- 
risches  Wesen,  iible  Laune.' 

103  et  fur  a  (praep.)  iiber  ai(t),  eine  in  volkstiimlichen  lothringischen  Texten 
nicht  selten  anzutreffende  Schreibung,  die  jedoch  in  unserer  Handschrift  befremdet, 
da  diese  nicht  den  mundartlichen  Nachlaut  i  nach  a  sondern  die  entgegengesetzte 
Erscheinung,  die  Reduktion  von  ai  zu  a,  begiinstigt.  Siehe  dariiber  Bonnardot  in 
seiner  textkritischen  Studie  zu  Bouteiller's  Ausgabe  der  Guerre  de  Metz,  S.  436  und 
Glossaire  s.  v.  et,  sowie  Keuffer  in  Romanische  Forschungen,  vin,  S.  465. 

Ill  Der  Hiatus  kann  vermieden  werden,  wenn  man  mit  0  qu'il  y  virent  liest. 

117  Der  Vers  ist  zu  kurz;  etwa:  Tresjoissoient  (5  silbig)  tuit  li  cuer  oder  Qui  tr. 
(in  aktivem  Sinne)  le  cuer. 


214  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

131,  233,  265,  278  mirascle,  von  Godefroy  nach  unserem  Texte  und  einer  Stelle 
aus  Wace's  Conception  (Hs.  Br.  M.  Add.  15606  fol.  55C)  in  sein  Worterbuch  (Compl. 
s.  v.  miracle)  aufgenommen,  ist  mit  sustilmant  209,  sosfri  285  und  286  (und  Einfluss 
der  Praep.)  nosriz  295  umgekehrte  Schreibung,  da  s  vor  Kons.  langst  verstumrut 
war,  wie  die  Reime  gecine  :  rotsne  (nach  rois)  151,  152,  allumat  :  donast  365,  366  und 
tramit :  Jhesiicrist  357,  358  zeigen ;  s.  noch  et  (=est)  226. 

132  Die  Hs.  hat  paradis,  gebessert  in  bethleem. 

146  fblgt  in  Hs.  Douce  das  Verspaar  :  Doulce  metre  dou  roy  de  gloire,  Per  ycelle 
sainte  memoire. 

148  Hs.  gloteriie. 

149  Bessere  :  Rose  mit  0. 

153  aspurgier,  lothr.  fiir  espurgier. 

155  Hs.  anfans. 

159  ces  =  ses ;  ebenso  296,  308,  355.     Vgl.  ceant  206. 

165  Hs.  ploroit,  gebessert  in  parloit. 

169  Wegen  liosse  mit  Reduction  von  oi  zu  o  (vergL  lioisse  179)  s.  die  Einleitung. 

174  In  der  Fassung  O  war  das  Gebet  fiir  eine  Dame  bestimmt. 

196  ist  wohl  nach  O  zu  lesen :  Ma  t.  douce  pais  r. 

199  Die  befremdliche  und  unsichere  Kurzform  nosme  (der  erste  Schaft  des  m  ist 
in  der  Hs.  von  den  beiden  folgenden  getrennt)  ist  wohl  von  dem  Schreiber  aus  metris- 
chen  Griinden  gebildet  worden  (wegen  mout}.  Es  ist  daher  mit  0  zu  lesen :  La 
neuvixme  (oder  nuev.}  joie  fui  grant.  Vgl.  noch  die  Aualogieform  dessisme  (v.  226) 
fur  regelm.  disme. 

210  puples  (peuple  163)  avugle  254 ;  liber  diese  Schreibung,  welche  auch  im 
Lyoner  Yzopet  (s.  Einl.,  xxxm)  begegnet,  s.  zuletzt  Langfors,  Li  Regres  Nostre  Dame, 
S.  vii. 

226  dessisme,  Analogieform  zu  septisme,  uitisme.     Hs.  petitte. 

232  mermoire  mit  pleonastischem  r  (vor  m)  durch  Assimilation  wie  armors  in 
v.  163  des  anglonorm.  Textes. 

246  sent,  Konjunktiv  fiir  seust. 

250  Statt  siu  lies  sui  (nach  mui  346)  und  demgemass  estoient  mit  O ;  die  beiden 
Pluralformen  (Masc.)  des  unbetonteu  Possessivpronomens  mui,  mi  finden  sich  z.  B. 
im  Lyoner  Yzopet,  s.  Einl.  S.  xix.  Betreflfs  tui  im  Lothr.,  das  unserem  Texte  fehlt, 
vgl.  Meyer-Liibke,  Gramm.,  n,  S.  114. 

259  Bessere:  comandement. 

261  saint,  Euphernismus ?  Besser  mit  O  ma(u)eais  zu  lesen;  dann  ist  esperite 
dreisilbig. 

271  fehlt  der  Reimvers,  der  nach  O  gelautet  ha  ben  mag:  Qui  me  garisse  de  ma 
plaie.  Que  mit  Imp.,  s.  Anm.  26  und  v.  342. 

277  Fiir  unmogliches  sap  der  Handschrift  habe  ich  die  mundartliche  Form  sa  in 
den  Text  gesetzt;  vgl.  Orson  de  Beauvais,  v.  515:  Or  ne  sa  se  ma  mere  li  feroiz 
esposer. 

285,  286  Identischer  Reim,  zu  verbessern  durch  Aufuahme  der  Var.  senti  in  den 
Text ;  1.  auch  Qu'oncques. 

288  ignocence  (wohl  durch  Einfluss  von  ignorance,  s.  Var.)  begegnet  noch  im 
Lyoner  Yzopet  v.  110. 

289,  304  delirousse.     Letztere  Stelle  bei  Godefroy  s.  v.  deliros  'enrage,  furieux, 


J.    PRIEBSCH  215 

effroyable.'  Besser  entspricht  dern  Sinne  die  Lesart  der  Oxforder  Handschrift 
(dolerouse),  dessen  Schreiber  das  seltene  Wort  wohl  unbekannt  war. 

292  Das  Wort  nach  que  1st  unleserlich ;  die  Erganzung  der  Stelle  ergiebt  sich 
aus  0. 

295  Hs.  comceuz. 

314  Hs.  menire. 

327,  328  in  O  umgestellt. 

332  Hs.  an  tel.     Morel  vermutet  an  eel  (fur  del). 

333  Hs.  ain&i,  in  an  si  geandert,  da  an  in  der  Hs.  nie  den  Nachlaut  zeigt. 
339  Ce  =  se. 

344  Hs.  am  lui. 

357  Bessere :  En  1.  nach  0. 

370  prome<proximum,  auch  irn  Lothringischen  Psalter  (S.  XLIV). 


NACHTRAG. 

SCHLUSSSTROPHE    DER    OXFORDER    HANDSCHRIFT1. 

fol.  185  r.  Benoite  et  tresbien  aornee, 

Dame  sor  toutes  aoree,  . 

La  toie  siste  (!)  ascention 

Ce  fut  la  consummation 
5  De  toutes  joies  et  la  quinzime, 

Quant  de  cest  siecle,  qu'est  1'abisme — 

Ceu  est  vallee,  ceu  est  exil — 

Ou2  noblement,  sens  nulz  perilz, 

Fut  tes  corps  et  ton  arm63  levee 
fol.  185  v.       10  Come(nt)  royne  (et)  cojronnee. 

Sor  touz  les  ordres  de  laissus 

Est  tes  biaulz  filz  li  doulz  Jhesus, 

Li  tresdoulz  souloiz  de  justice  : 

T'ait  a  la  soie  dextre  mise 
15  Et  fait  et  fit  tant  de  1'onour 

Comme  tes  filz  et  ton  signour; 

Et  fist  a  honoreir  sa  meire. 

1  Nach  der  von   E.    Stengel  (Mittheilungen  aus  franz.   Handschriften  der   Turiner 
Universitatsbibliothek,  Halle,  1873)  bekanntgegebenen  Probe — die  2  ersten  und  3  letzten 
Zeilen— enthielt  diese  Strophe  auch  die  oben  erwahnte,  1904  veruichtete  Turiner  Hs. 

2  Vielleicht  ou  zu  streichen  und  et  nach  noblement  einzusetzen.  3  Lies  t'arme. 


216  Zwei  altfranzosische  Mariengebete 

Dame  aaisiee,  dame  cleire, 

Dame  de  grant  delices  plainne, 
fol.  186  r.       20  Or  yes  assise  a  lai  fontain  ne 

De  touz  biens,  de  touz  honours, 

Plainnement  sor  lez  biens  d'amour. 

Or  cognoiz  tu  bien  1'uniteit 

De  ceste  sainte  triniteit ; 
25  Tu  es  la  maistre  consilliere: 

Or  nous  secour  per  tai  proiere, 

Conime  fille  deprie  lou  peire, 

Ausi  commande  comme  meire 

Au  saint  Esperit  com  amie. 
30  Or  y  perfait  pouxa[n]t  amie1 

Com  priereiz  lou  hault  signour, 

Si  com  il  est  flours  de  doulsour, 

Fontainne  de  chariteit, 

De  courtoisie  et  de  piteit, 
35  Habundance  grande  et  plainniere 

De  delices  et  de  lumiere, 

De  joie,  de  gloire  et  de  graice, 

Que  il  en  cest  siecle  nous  faice 

A  lui  servir  si  tresforment 
fol.  187  r.       4o  Et  saintement  '  et  doulcement 

Qu'en  la  fin  lou  puissiens  veoir 

Tenir,  embraissier  et  avoir. 

Dites  amen  que  Deus  1'otroit. 

J.  PRIEBSCH. 

WlEN. 

1  Identischer  Beim.     Die  Stelle  scheint  verdorben,  vergl.  poissant  v.  266  (Var.). 


'AHRIMANES.' 

BY 

THOMAS   LOVE   PEACOCK. 

ALTHOUGH  renewed  interest  has  been  taken  recently  in  the  works 
of  Thomas  Love  Peacock,  a  large  amount  of  literary  matter  from  his 
pen  still  remains  unnoticed  and  unpublished.  Among  these  efforts, 
which  include  three  plays,  an  Essay  on  Fashionable  Literature  and  a 
considerable  number  of  letters,  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  is  the 
unfinished  poem  Ahrimanes.  It  is  contained  in  one  of  the  two  volumes 
(No.  36816)  of  Peacock's  literary  remains  which  are  in  the  possession  of 
the  Trustees  of  the  British  Museum,  having  been  purchased  by  them 
from  Mrs  Edith  Clarke  in  1903.  Following  it  is  a  lengthy  outline 
in  prose  for  its  completion  which  is  reproduced,  with  some  alterations, 
in  a  series  of  prose  sketches  divided  into  twelve  cantos.  Both  the 
poem  and  the  prose  descriptions  of  the  continuation  are  holographic, 
but  it  is  difficult  from  the  writing  to  say  when  they  were  written. 
The  only  allusion  to  it  that  the  writer  has  been  able  to  find  is  con- 
tained in  Sir  Henry  Cole's  Biographical  Notes  (p.  11),  of  which  only 
ten  copies  were  printed  in  1875.  Cole  inaccurately  states  that  the 
manuscript  consists  of  a  fragment  of  the  first  canto  and  attributes  that 
to  the  date  1810,  but  it  would  be  interesting  to  know  upon  what 
grounds  he  does  so.  A  part  of  the  subject-matter  resembles  somewhat 
the  poem  Necessity  published  in  Cole's  1875  edition  of  Peacock's  works 
(Vol.  in,  p.  105)  which  was  written  after  1811,  while  the  birth  of 
primogenial  love  given  in  Stanzas  V.  and  XIX.  recalls  a  note  belonging 
to  the  first  canto  of  Rhododapkne  (Cole's  edition  of  Peacock's  works, 
Vol.  in,  p.  158)  which  was  first  published  as  late  as  1818.  Besides, 
the  following  poem  shews  the  influence  of  Shelley,  in  spite  of  its 
pessimistic  tone,  and  it  was  not  until  1812  that  Shelley  and  Peacock 
met  and  their  friendship  began.  Moreover,  it  will  be  shewn  later  on 


218  'Ahmmanes'  by  Thomas  Love  Peacock 

that  it  was  the  outcome  of  Peacock's  intercourse  with  one  of  the  many 
eccentric  friends  that  Shelley  gathered  round  him  at  Bracknell  and 
with  whom  Peacock  became  first  acquainted  in  the  autumn  of  1813. 

AHRIMANES. 

Man's  happiest  lot  is  not  to  be  : 
And  when  we  tread  life's  thorny  steep, 
Most  blest  are  they  who  earliest  free, 
Descend  to  death's  eternal  sleep. 

CANTO  I. 

In  silver  eddies  glittering  to  the  moon, 

Araxes  rolls  his  many-sounding  tide. 

Fair  as  the  dreams  of  hope,  and  past  as  soon, 

But  in  succession  infinite  supplied, 

The  rapid  waters  musically  glide. 

Now,  where  the  cliffs'  phantastic  shadow  laves, 

Silent  and  dark,  they  roll  their  volumed  pride  : 

Now,  by  embowering  woods  and  solemn  caves, 

Around  some  jutting  rock  the  struggling  torrent  raves. 

II. 

Darassah  stands  beside  the  lonely  shore, 

Intently  gazing  on  the  imaged  beam 

As  one  whose  steps  each  lonely  haunt  explore 

Of  nymph  or  naiad, — grove,  or  rock,  or  stream — 

Nature  his  guide,  his  object,  and  his  theme. 

Ah  no — Darassah's  eyes  these  forms  survey 

As  phantoms  of  a  half-remembered  dream  : 

His  eyes  are  on  the  water's  glittering  play  : 

Their  mental  sense  is  closed — his  thoughts  are  far  away. 

III. 

But  central  in  the  flood  of  liquid  light, 
A  sudden  spot  its  widening  orb  revealed, 
Jet-black  amid  the  mirrored  beams  of  night, 
Jet-black  and  round  as  Celtic  warrior's  shield, 
A  sable  circle  in  a  silver  field. 
With  sense  recalled  and  motionless  surprise, 
Deeming  some  fearful  mystery  there  concealed, 
He  marked  that  shadowy  orb's  expanding  size, 
Till  slowly  from  its  breast  a  form  began  to  rise. 

IV. 

A  female  form  :   and  even  as  marble  pale 

Her  cheeks :    her  eyes  unearthly  fire  illumed  : 

Far  o'er  her  shoulders  streamed  a  sable  veil, 

Where  flowers  of  living  flame  inwoven  bloomed  ; 

No  mortal  robe  might  bear  them  unconsuined : 

A  crown  her  temples  bound :    on  such  ne'er  gazed 

Eyes  that  had  seen  primeval  kings  entombed  : 

Twelve  points  it  bore :   on  every  point  upraised 

A  star — a  heavenly  star — with  dazzling  radiance  blazed. 


A.    B.    YOUNG  219 

V. 

Lovely  she  was — not  loveliness  that  might 

In  mortal  heart  enkindle  light  desire — 

But  such  as  decked  the  form  of  youthful  Night, 

When,  on  the  bosom  of  her  '  sire, 

With  gentler  passion  she  did  first  inspire 

The  gloomy  soul  of  Erebus  severe ; 

Ere  from  her  breast,  on  wings  of  golden  fire, 

Primordial  love  sprang  o'er  the  infant  sphere, 

And  bade  young  Time  arise  and  lead  the  vernal  year. 

VI. 

Her  right  hand  held  a  wand,  whose  potent  sway 

Her  liquid  path,  the  buoyant  waves,  obeyed, 

Still  as  she  moved,  the  moon-beams  died  away, 

And  shade  around  her  fell — a  circling  shade — 

That  gave  no  outline  of  the  wondrous  maid. 

Her  form — soft-gliding  as  the  summer  gale — 

In  that  portentous  darkness  shone  arrayed, 

Shone  by  her  starry  crown,  her  fiery  veil, 

And  those  refulgent  eyes  that  made  their  radiance  pale. 

VII. 

'Why — simple  dweller  of  the  Araxian  isle'— 

Thus,  as  she  passed  the  shore,  the  gejiius  said — 

'  Seek  st  thou  this  spot,  to  muse  and  mourn  the  while, 

Beside  this  river's  ever  murmuring  bed, 

When  gentle  sleep  has  her  dominion  spread 

On  every  living  thing  around  but  thee  ? 

The  silent  stars,  that  twinkle  o'er  thy  head, 

Shed  rest  and  peace  on  hill,  and  flower,  arid  tree  ; 

All  but  the  eternal  stream,  that  flows  melodiously.' 

VIII. 

Solemn  her  voice,  as  music  vesper  peal 

From  distant  choir  to  cloistered  echo  borne, 

Where  the  deep  notes  through  pillared  twilight  steal, 

Breathing  tranquillity  to  souls  that  mourn. 

The  awe-struck  youth  replied :    '  Of  one  so  lorn 

Can'st  thou,  empyreal  spirit,  deign  require 

The  secret  woes  by  which  his  soul  is  torn  ? 

Sure  from  the  fountain  of  eternal  fire 

Thy  wondrous  birth  began,  great  Mithra's  self  thy  sire. 

IX. 

'Through  many  an  age  amid  these  island  bowers 

The  simple  fathers  of  our  race  have  dwelt  : 

To  them  spontaneous  nature  fruits  and  flowers, 

By  toil  'unsought,  with  partial  bounty  dealt : 

At  Oromazes'  sylvan  shrine  they  knelt. 

And  morn  and  eve  did  choral  suppliance  flow 

From  hearts  that  love  and  mingled  reverence  felt, 

To  him  who  gave  them  every  bliss  to  know 

That  simple  hearts  can  wish,  or  heavenly  love  bestow 

1  Word  illegible. 


220  '  Ahrimanes '  by  Thomas  Love  Peacock 

X. 

'But  years  passed  on,  and  strange  perversion  ran 

Among  the  dwellers  of  the  peaceful  isle  : 

And  one,  more  daring  than  the  rest,  began 

To  fell  the  grove,  and  point  the  mossy  pile ; 

And  raised  the  circling  fence,  with  evil  wile, 

And  to  his  brethren  said  :    These  bounds  are  mine  : 

And  did  with  living  victims  first  defile 

The  verdant  turf  of  Oromazes'  shrine  ; 

Sad  offering  sure,  and  strange,  to  mercy's  source  divine. 

XI. 

'And  ill  example  evil  followers  drew  ; 

Till  common  good  and  common  right  were  made 

The  fraudful  tenure  of  a  powerful  few: 

The  many  murmured,  trembled,  and  obeyed. 

Then  peace  and  freedom  fled  the  sylvan  shade, 

And  care  arose,  and  toil,  unknown  before : 

And  some  the  hollowed  alder's  trunk  essayed, 

And  left,  with  tearful  eyes,  their  natal  shore. 

Swift  down  the  stream  they  went,  and  they  returned  no  more. 

XII. 

'And  I  too,  oft,  beyond  that  barrier-rock, 

That  hides  from  view  the  river's  -onward  way — 

Where,  eddying  round  its  base  with  ceaseless  shock, 

The  waves,  that  flash,  and  disappear  for  aye, 

Their  parting  murmurs  to  my  ear  convey — 

In  fancy  turn  my  meditative  gaze, 

And  trace,  encircled  by  their  powerful  sway, 

Some  blooming  isle,  where  love  unfettered  strays, 

And  peace  and  freedom  dwell,  as  here  in  earlier  days. 

XIII. 

But  one  there  is,  for  whom  my  tears  are  shed  ; 
A  maid  of  wealthier  lot  and  prouder  line: 
With  her  my  happy  infant  hours  I  led ; 
And  sweet  our  mutual  task  ;   at  morn  to  twine 
The  votive  wreath  round  Oromazes'  shrine — 
She  mourns  a  captive  in  her  father's  home-- 
Alone I  rove,  to  murmur  and  repine — 
Alone,  where  sparkling  waves  symphonious  foam, 
I  breathe  my  secret  pangs  to  heaven's  empyreal  dome.' 

XIV. 

'Leave  tears  to  slaves' — the  genius  answering  said — 

'Adventurous  deed  the  noble  mind  beseems. 

Oh  shame  to  manhood !    thus,  with  listless  tread, 

In  tears  and  sighs  and  inconclusive  dreams 

To  waste  thy  hours  by  groves  and  murmuring  streams. 

I  bring  thee  power  for  weakness,  joy  for  woe, 

And  certain  bliss  for  hope's  fallacious  schemes, 

Unless  thou  lightly  thy  own  weal  forego, 

And  soon  the  splendid  lot  thy  bounteous  fates  bestow. 


A.    B.    YOUNG  221 

XV. 

'  This  gifted  ring  shall  every  barrier  break  : 

The  maid  thou  lovest  thy  wandering  steps  shall  share : 

When  night  returns,  with  her  this  isle  forsake, 

From  this  thy  favored  haunt :   my  guardian  care 

To  waft  ye  hence,  the  vessel  shall  prepare. 

The  monarch  of  the  world  hath  chosen  thee 

High  trust,  and  power,  and  dignity  to  bear, 

I  come,  obedient  to  his  high  decree, 

To  set  from  error's  spell  thy  captive  senses  free. 

XVI. 

'  Deem'st  thou,  when  blood  of  living  victims  flows, 

'Mid  incense  smoke,  in  denser  volumes  curled, 

That  Oromazes  there  a  glance  bestows, 

A  glance  of  joy,  to  see  the  death-blow  hurled  ? 

No — far  remote  in  orient  clouds  enfurled ; 

Nor  prayer  nor  sacrificial  rite  he  heeds. 

His  reign  is  past:    his  rival  rules  the  world. 

From  Ahrimanes  now  all  power  proceeds  : 

For  him  the  altar  burns :   for  him  the  victim  bleeds. 

XVII. 

'Parent  of  being,  mistress  of  the  spheres, 

Supreme  Necessity  o'er  all  doth  reign : 

She  guides  the  course  of  the  revolving  years, 

With  power  no  prayers  can  change,  no  force  restrain ; 

Binding  all  nature  in  her  golden  chain, 

Whose  infinite  connection  links  afar 

The  smallest  atom  of  the  sandy  plain 

And  the  last  ray  of  heaven's  remotest  star, 

That  round  the  verge  of  space  wheels  its  refulgent  car. 

XVIII. 

'  She  to  two  gods,  sole  agents  of  her  will, 

By  turns  has  given  her  delegated  sway: 

Her  sovereign  laws  obedient  they  fulfil : 

Inferior  powers  their  high  behests  obey. 

First  Oromazes— lord  of  peace  and  day — 

Dominion  held  o'er  nature  and  mankind. 

Now  Ahrimanes  rules,  and  holds  his  way 

In  storms  :   for  such  his  task  by  her  assigned, 

To  shake  the  world  with  war,  and  rouse  the  powers  of  mind. 

XIX. 

'She  first  on  chaos  poured  the  streams  of  light, 
And  bade  from  that  mysterious  union  rise 
Primordial  love  :   the  heavenly  lion's  might 
Bore  him  rejoicing  through  the  new-born  skies. 
Then  glowed  the  infant  world  with  countless  dyes 
Of  fruits  and  flowers:   and  virgin  nature  smiled 
Emerging  first  from  ancient  night's  disguise 
And  elemental  discord,  vast  and  wild, 
Which  primogenial  love  had  charmed  and  reconciled. 


222  'Ahrimanes*  by  Thomas  Love  Peacock 

XX. 

'  Then  man  arose :   to  him  the  world  was  given, 

Unknowing  then  disease,  or  storm,  or  death  : 

The  eternal  balance,  in  the  central  heaven, 

Marked  the  free  tenure  of  his  equal  birth, 

And  equal  right  to  all  the  bounteous  earth 

Of  fruit  or  flower,  his  pristine  food,  might  yield. 

Nor  private  roof  he  knew,  nor  blazing  hearth, 

Nor  marked  with  barrier-lines  the  fruitful  fields, 

Nor  learned  in  martial  strife  the  uprooted  oak  to  wield. 

XXI. 

'Then  Oromazes  reigned.     Profoundly  calm 
His  empire,  as  the  lake's  unruffled  breast, 
When  evening  twilight  melts  in  dews  of  balm, 
And  rocks  and  woods  in  calm  reflection  rest, 
As  if  for  aye  indelibly  imprest. 
Were  those  fair  forms,  in  peerless  light  arrayed. 
No  sigh,  no  wish,  the  peaceful  heart  confest ; 
Save  when  the  youth,  beneath  the  myrtle  shade, 
Wooed  to  his  fond  embrace  the  easy-yielding  maid. 

XXII. 

1  No  pillared  fanes  to  Oromazes  rose  : 
For  him  no  priest  the  destined  victim  led. 
The  choral  hymn,  in  swelling  sound  that  flows, 
Where  round  the  marble  altar  streaming  red 
The  slow  procession  moves  with  solemn  tread, 
His  empire  owned  not: — but  his  bounty  grew, 
By  prayer  or  hymn  nor  sought  nor  merited  : 
No  altar  but  the  peaceful  heart  he  knew — 
His  only  temple-vault,  the  heaven's  ethereal  blue. 

XXIII. 

'Such  was  the  infant  world,  and  such  the  reign 

Of  cloudless  sunshine  and  oblivious  joy; 

Till  rose  the  scorpion  in  the  empyreal  plain, 

In  fated  hour,  their  empire  to  destroy, 

And  with  unwonted  cares  the  course  alloy 

Of  mortal  being  and  terrestrial  time  ; 

That  man  might  all  his  god-like  powers  employ 

The  toilsome  steep  of  wealth  and  fame  to  climb, 

To  rugged  labor  trained  and  glory's  thirst  sublime. 

XXIV. 

'To  Ahrimanes  thus  devolved  the  power, 

Which  still  he  holds  through  all  the  realms  of  space. 

He  bade  the  sea  to  swell — the  storm  to  lower — 

And  taught  mankind  the  pliant  bow  to  brace, 

And  point  the  shaft,  and  urge  the  sounding  chace, 

And  force  from  veins  of  flint  the  seeds  of  fire  ; 

Till,  as  more  daring  thoughts  found  gradual  place, 

He  bade  the  mind  to  nobler  prey  aspire, 

Of  war  and  martial  fame  kindling  the  high  desire. 


A.    B.    YOUNG  223 

XXV. 

'  For  him  on  earth  unnumbered  temples  rise, 

And  altars  burn,  and  bleeding  victims  die  : 

Albeit  the  sons  of  men  his  name  disguise 

In  other  names  that  choice  or  chance  supply, 

To  him  alone  their  incense  soars  on  high. 

The  god  of  armies  —  the  avenging  god  — 

Seva  or  Allah  —  Jove  or  Mars  —  they  cry  : 

'Tis  Ahrimaiies  still  that  wields  the  rod  ; 

To  him  all  nature  bends,  and  trembles  at  his  nod. 

XXVI. 

'  Yea,  even  on  Oromazes'  self  they  call, 

But  Ahrimanes  hears  their  secret  prayer. 

Not  in  the  name  that  from  the  lips  may  fall, 

But  in  the  thought  the  heart's  recesses  bear 

The  sons  of  earth  the  power  they  serve  declare. 

Wherever  priests  awake  the  battle-strain, 

And  bid  the  torch  of  persecution  glare, 

And  curses  ring  along  the  vaulted  fane  — 

Call  on  what  name  they  may  —  their  god  is  Ahriruane. 

XXVII. 

'  Favor  to  few,  to  many  wrath  he  shews  : 
None  with  impunity  his  power  may  brave. 
Two  classes  only  of  mankind  he  knows, 
The  lord  and  serf  —  the  tyrant  and  the  slave. 
Some  hermit  sage,  where  lonely  torrents  rave, 
May  muse  and  dream  of  Oromazes  still  : 
Despised  he  lives,  and  finds  a  nameless  grave. 
The  chiefs  and  monarchs  of  the  world  fulfil 

—  l  Ahrimanes  behests  —  the  creatures  of  his  will. 

XXVIII. 

'Say—  hadst  thou  rather  grovel  with  the  crowd, 

The  wretched  thing  and  tool  of  lordly  might, 

Or,  where  the  battle-clarion  brays  aloud, 

Blaze  forth  conspicuous  in  the  fields  of  fight, 

And  bind  thy  brow  with  victory's  chaplet  bright, 

And  be  the  king  of  men  ?—  Thy  choice  is  free.  — 

Receive  the  ring.  —  Observe  the  coming  night.  — 

The  monarch  of  the  world  hath  chosen  thee 

To  spread  his  name  on  earth,  in  power  and  majesty.'— 


She  said  and  gave  the  ring.     The  youth  received 

The  glittering  spell,  in  awe  and  mute  amaze 

Standing  like  one  almost  of  sense  bereaved, 

That  fixes  on  the  vacant  air  his  gaze, 

Where  wildered  fancy's  troubled  eye  surveys 

Dim-flitting  forms,  obscure  and  undefined, 

That  doubtful  thoughts  and  shadowy  feelings  raise, 

Leaving  a  settled  image  on  the  mind  : 

Like  cloud-built  rocks  and  towers,  dissolved  ere  half-combined. 

1  Word  illegible. 


224  'Ahrimanes'  by  'ITiomas  Love  Peacock 

XXX. 

Nor  stayed  she  longer  pale :    but  round  her  form 

A  sable  vapor,  thickly  mantling  drew 

Its  volumed  folds,  dark  as  the  summer  storm. 

It  wrapped  her  round,  and  in  an  instant  flew, 

Scattered  like  mist,  though  not  a  zephyr  blew, 

And  left  no  vestige  that  she  there  had  been. 

The  river  rolled  in  light.     The  moonbeams  threw 

Their  purest  radiance  on  the  lovely  scene ; 

And  hill,  and  grove,  and  rock,  slept  in  the  ray  serene. 


CANTO  II. 
I. 

Spake  the  dark  genius  truly,  when  she  said, 
That  Abrirnanes  rules  this  mundane  ball  ? 
That  man  in  toil  and  darkness  doomed  to  tread, 
Ambition's  slave  and  superstition's  thrall, 
Doth  only  on  the  power  of  evil  call, 
With  hymn  and  prayer,  and  votive  altar's  blaze  ? 
Alas  !    whenever  guiltless  victims  fall ', 
Wherever  priest  the  sword  of  strife  displays 
Small  trace  is  there,  I  ween,  of  ancient  Oromaze. 

II. 

Yet  if  on  earth  a  single  spot  there  be, 
Where  fraud,  corruption,  selfishness  and  pride 
Wear  not  the  specious  robes  of  sanctity, 
With  hypocritic  malice  to  divide 
The  bonds  of  love  and  peace  by  nature  tied 
'Twixt  man  and  man,  far  as  the  billows  roll, — 
Where  idle  tales,  that  truth  and  sense  deride, 
Claim  no  dominion  o'er  the  subject  soul, — 
There  Oromazes  still  exerts  his  mild  control. 

III. 

But  not  in  fanes  where  priestly  curses  ring, — 

Not  in  the  venal  court,  the  servile  camp, — 

Not  where  the  slaves  of  a  voluptuous  king 

Would  fain  o'erwhelm,  in  flattery's  poison-clamp, — 

Truth's  vestal  torch  and  love's  Promethean  lamp,— 

Not  where  the  tools  of  tyrants  bite  the  ground, 

'Mid  broken  swords  and  steeds'  ensanguined  tramp, 

To  add  one  gem  to  those  that  now  surround 

Some  pampered  baby's  brow, — may  trace  of  him  be  found. 

1  'It  is  possible  to  sacrifice  victims — human  victims — without  cutting  their  throats  or 
shedding  a  drop  of  their  blood  and  that  too  under  the  name  and  with  the  specious  form  of 
justice.  It  is  possible  to  display  the  sword  of  strife  and  be  a  very  effective  member 
of  the  church  militant  without  the  visible  employment  of  temporal  weapons.  If  a  man 
can  be  robbed  of  his  liberty  and  his  property  for  the  calm  exposition  of  his  opinions 
on  speculative  subjects  it  is  of  little  consequence  whether  the  instrument  of  oppression  be 
a  grand  inquisition  or  an  attorney  general. '  (This  is  crossed  through  in  pencil  and  appears 
to  be  an  allusion  to  Shelley.) 


A.    B.    YOUNG  225 

IV. 

The  star  of  day  rolled  on  the  radiant  hours, 

And  sunk  again  behind  the  western  steep. 

The  dews  of  twilight  bathed  the  closing  flowers. 

The  full-orbed  moon,  amid  the  empyreal  deep, 

Restored  the  reign  of  silence  and  of  sleep. 

Again  Darassah  seeks  the  moonlit  shore, 

But  comes  not  now  in  solitude  to  weep  : 

He  leads  the  maid  his  inmost  thoughts  adore, 

To  tempt  with  him  the  stream,  and  unknown  scenes  explore. 

V. 

A  bark  is  on  the  shore  :   the  rippling  wave 

With  gentle  murmur  chafes  against  its  sides. 

Shrinks  not  the  maid,  that  barrier-rock  to  brave, 

Whose  jutting  base  the  eddying  river  chides  ? 

Fear  finds  no  place,  where  mightier  love  presides. 

They  press  the  bark  :   the  waters  gently  flow : 

The  light  sail  swells  :   the  steady  vessel  glides  : 

The  favouring  breeze  still  follows  as  they  go  : 

They  pass  the  barrier-rock  :   they  haste  to  weal  or  woe. 

VI. 

He  holds  the  helm  :    beside  him  sits  the  maid  : 
Her  arms  around  her  lover's  form  are  twined  : 
Her  head  upon  her  lover's  breast  is  laid  : 
Pressed  to  his  heart,  in  tenderest  rest  reclined, 
Lulled  by  the  symphony  of  wave  and  wind, 
To  lonely  isles  and  citron-groves  she  flies 
(By  fancy's  spell  in  fondest  dreams  enshrined), 
Where  love,  and  health,  and  peaceful  thoughts  suffice 
To  renovate  the  bowers  of  earthly  paradise. 

VII. 

Less  pure  Darassah's  thoughts  :    ambition's  spell 

Had  touched  his  soul,  and  dreams  of  power  and  fame ; 

But  feeble  yet,  and  vague  :   nor  knew  he  well, 

Whence  those  disturbed  imaginations  came, 

That  touched  his  breast  with  no  benignant  flame. 

No  state  too  proud,  no  destiny  too  high, 

For  her  he  loved  his  wildest  thought  could  frame. 

What  might  not  that  mysterious  ring  supply, 

That  now  had  given  her  love,  and  life,  and  liberty  ? 

VIII. 

But  the  calm  elements — the  placid  moon — 

The  stars,  that  round  her  rolled  in  still  array — 

The  plaintive  breeze — the  stream's  responsive  tune — 

The  rapid  water's  silver-eddying  play, 

That  tracked  in  lines  of  light  their  onward  way— 

The  solemn  rocks,  in  mossy  shade  that  frowned — 

The  groves  ;   where  light  and  darkness  chequering  lay— 

Breathed  on  his  mind  the  peace  that  reigned  around, 

And  checked  each  turbid  thought  that  erst  had  entrance  found. 


M.  L.  R.  iv. 


15 


226  'Ahmmanes '  by  Thomas  Love  Peacock 

IX. 

The  nightingale  sang  sweetly  in  the  shade  : 

The  dewy  rose  breathed  fragrance  on  the  air. 

Who  now  more  blest  than  that  fond  youth  and  maid, 

Whom  the  swift  waters  of  Araxes  bear, 

One  common  lot,  or  good  or  ill,  to  share  ? 

If  ill — light  falls  the  shaft  of  adverse  fate, 

When  mutual  love  assuages  mutual  care  : 

If  good — can  bliss  the  feeling  mind  await, 

Unless  one  tender  heart  its  joys  participate  ? 

X. 

So  thought  Kelasris,  wrapped  in  dreams  of  hope ; 

Nor  deemed  how  scon,  in  time's  delusive  reign, 

The  brightest  tints  of  youthful  fancy's  scope 

Fade  in  the  vast  reality  of  pain, 

That  speaks  the  omnipotence  of  Ahrimane. 

But  while  the  light  bark  glided  fast  and  free 

And  not  a  cloud  obscured  the  ethereal  plain, 

The  gale — the  stream — the  night-bird's  melody — 

Touched  in  her  soul  the  chords  of  tenderer  harmony. 

XI. 

The  stars  grow  pale,  and  o'er  the  western  verge 

Of  heaven  the  moon  her  parting  orb  suspends ; 

She  sinks  behind  the  hill.     The  eddying  s,urge 

Keflects  the  deepening  blush  that  morning  lends 

To  eastern  mountain's  top,  where  softly  blends 

Its  misty  outline  with  the  reddening  sky. 

Tow'rd  heaven's  high  arch  the  lark  exulting  tends  : 

Lost  in  the  depth,  invisible  on  high, 

He  makes  the  rocks  resound  with  his  sweet  minstrelsy. 

XII. 

The  sun  comes  forth  upon  the  mountain  top. 

The  wide  earth  feels  his  vivifying  sway. 

The  dewy  flowers  unclose,  and  every  drop 

Light  trembling  on  the  leaf — the  moss — the  spray — 

Beams  like  a  diamond  in  the  streams  of  day  : 

All  nature  glitters  like  an  orient  bride, 

Whom  countless  gems  and  fairest  flowers  array. 

The  scattered  mountain  mist  flies  fast  and  wide, 

Like  incense  to  the  shrine  of  morning's  radiant  pride1. 

XIII. 

The  bark  glides  swiftly  on :   new  scenes  expand 
In  day's  full  splendour  now  distinctly  seen. 
The  light  acacia  blooms  along  the  strand. 
Deep  groves  of  pine,  where  laurels  wave  between, 

1  This  stanza   was  changed   by  Peacock.     Lines   2,  6,   and  7  .are  crossed   through 
and  the  following  alternative  given  for  the  last  two  lines : 

The  scattered  mist  flies  far  the  heaven  upborne 
Like  earth's  glad  incense  to  the  shrine  of  morn. 


A.    B.    YOUNG  227 

Rear  their  dark  tufts  of  everlasting  green  : 

The  sunbeams  on  the  glossy  laurel  play, 

A  trembling  flood  of  silver-radiance  sheen. 

Now  the  vast  oak  o'ercanopies  their  way  ; 

And  now  the  beetling  crag,  with  sapless  lichens  gray1. 

This  fragment  of  the  poem  that  Peacock  intended  to  complete  in 
twelve  cantos  reflects  the  same  opposition  to  established  institutions 
and  beliefs  that  was  shared  by  Shelley  and  his  friends.  Hogg  has 
related  several  anecdotes  about  one  of  these  whom  he  calls  '  J.  F.  N/ 
and  to  whom  Peacock  alludes  under  the  same  initials.  This  gentleman, 
was  a  Mr  Newton  who  first  met  Shelley  on  August  5,  1812.  His  wife's 
sister  was  the  Mrs  de  Boinville  whom  Shelley  once  described  in  a  letter 
to  Peacock  as  '  the  most  admirable  specimen  of  a  human  being  I  had 
ever  seen,'  and  who,  with  her  daughter  Cornelia  Turner,  was  the  means 
of  initiating  Shelley  and  Hogg  into  the  beauties  of  Italian  poetry. 
This  lady  possessed  a  house  at  Bracknell  in  Berkshire  where  Shelley 
frequently  stayed  after  he  had  given  up  his  own  country  house  there. 
He  was  naturally  attracted  by  Mr  Newton's  firm  belief  in  vegetarianism 
which  had  been  expressed  in  his  essay  entitled  The  Return  to  Nature 
printed  in  1810 — three  years  before  Shelley  published  his  own  pamphlet 
A  Vindication  of  Natural  Diet  on  exactly  the  same  subject  and  with 
precisely  the  same  tendency.  It  was  while  staying  with  Shelley  that 
Peacock  met  Mr  Newton  at  Bracknell '  in  1813  and  we  know  from 
his  correspondence  with  Shelley  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  meeting 
the  De  Boinvilles — and  therefore  probably  the  Newtons — as  late  as 
1819.  In  his  Memoirs  of  Shelley,  Peacock  has  given  us  some  infor- 
mation about  Mr  Newton  which  supplies  the  source  from  which  he 
derived  the  poem  Ahrimanes,  although  he  himself  makes  no  allusion  to 
it  whatever.  (See  Cole's  edition  of  Peacock's  Works,  Vol.  in,  pp.  405, 
406.)  According  to  him  Mr  Newton  was  the  'best  worth  remembering' 
of  Shelley's  strange  and  eccentric  friends  at  Bracknell : 

He  was  an  estimable  man  and  an  agreeable  companion,  and  he  was  not  the  less 
amusing  that  he  was  the  absolute  impersonation  of  a  single  theory,  or  rather  of 
two  single  theories  rolled  into  one.  He  held  that  all  diseases  and  all  aberrations, 
moral  and  physical,  had  their  origin  in  the  use  of  animal  food  and  of  fermented 
and  spirituous  liquors  ;  that  the  universal  adoption  of  a  diet  of  roots,  fruits,  and 
distilled  water,  would  restore  the  golden  age  of  universal  health,  purity,  and  peace  ; 
that  this  most  ancient  and  sublime  morality  was  mystically  inculcated  in  the  most 
ancient  Zodiac,  which  was  that  of  Dendera ;  that  this  Zodiac  was  divided  into  two 
hemispheres,  the  upper  hemisphere  being  the  realm  of  Oromazes  or  the  principle  of 
good,  the  lower  that  of  Ahrimanes  or  the  principle  of  evil ;  that  each  of  these 
hemispheres  was  again  divided  into  two  compartments,  and  that  the  four  lines 
of  division  radiating  from  the  centre  were  the  prototype  of  the  Christian  cross. 

1  Peacock  crossed  through  lines  2,  6  and  7,  but  substituted  nothing  in  their  place. 

15—2 


228  'Ahrimanes'  by  Thomas  Love  Peacock 

The  two  compartments  of  Oromazes  were  those  of  Uranus  or  Brahma  the  Creator, 
and  of  Saturn  or  Veishnu  the  Preserver.  The  two  compartments  of  Ahrimanes 
were  those  of  Jupiter  or  Seva  the  Destroyer,  and  of  Apollo  or  Krishna  the  Restorer. 
The  great  moral  doctrine  was  thus  symbolized  in  the  Zodiacal  signs  : — In  the  first 
compartment,  Taurus  the  Bull,  having  in  the  ancient  Zodiac  a  torch  in  his  mouth, 
was  the  type  of  eternal  light.  Cancer  the  Crab  was  the  type  of  celestial  matter, 
sleeping  under  the  all-covering  water,  on  which  Brahma  floated  in  a  lotus-flower 
for  millions  of  ages.  From  the  union,  typified  by  Gemini,  of  light  and  celestial 
matter,  issued  in  the  second  compartment  Leo,  Primogenial  Love,  mounted  on 
the  back  of  a  Lion,  who  produced  the  pure  and  perfect  nature  of  things  in  Virgo, 
and  Libra  the  Balance  denoted  the  coincidence  of  the  ecliptic  with  the  equator, 
and  the  equality  of  man's  happy  existence.  In  the  third  compartment,  the  first 
entrance  of  evil  into  the  system  was  typified  by  the  change  of  celestial  into 
terrestrial  matter — Cancer  into  Scorpio.  Under  this  evil  influence  man  became  a 
hunter,  Sagittarius  the  Archer,  and  pursued  the  wild  animals,  typified  by  Capricorn. 
Then,  with  animal  food  and  cookery,  came  death  into  the  world,  and  all  our  woe. 
But  in  the  fourth  compartment,  Dhanwantari  or  JSsculapius,  Aquarius  the  Water- 
man, arose  from  the  sea,  typified  by  Pisces  the  Fish,  with  a  jug  of  pure  water  and  a 
bunch  of  fruit,  and  brought  back  the  period  of  universal  happiness  under  Aries  the 
Ram,  whose  benignant  ascendancy  was  the  golden  fleece  of  the  Argonauts,  and  the 
true  talisman  of  Oromazes. 

It  can  be  easily  seen  by  comparing  Ahrimanes  with  the  above 
account  of  Mr  Newton's  crotchet  for  zodiacal  representation  that 
Peacock  was  indebted  to  him  not  only  for  the  underlying  idea  of  his 
poem  but  for  many  of  its  details  as  well.  This  is  still  further  proved 
by  the  following  outline  of  the  poem,  written  by  its  author,  which 
is  useful  for  purposes  of  comparison  and  as  indicating,  at  any  rate, 
to  some  extent  what  Ahrimanes  would  have  been  like  had  it  ever 
reached  completion. 

Necessity  governs  the  world.  Subordinate  to  her  are  four  principal  genii ;  the 
creating,  the  preserving,  the  destroying  and  the  restoring  spirits.  Obedient  to  her 
first  command  the  creating  spirit  El-Oran  poured  light  on  chaos  from  which 
mysterious  union  arose  primogenial  love.  Under  his  vivifying  influence  nature 
originated  and  existed  in  purity.  This  being  accomplished  in  its  destined  period, 
the  preserving  spirit— Oromazes — assumed  his  delegated  empire  and  ruled  the 
infancy  of  nature  when  all  was  equality  and  happiness.  This  destined  period 
being  likewise  accomplished  the  destroyer — Ahrimanes — assumed  his  sway.  He 
brought  with  him  into  the  world  long  species  of  moral  and  physical  evil,  and  first 
corrupted  the  nature  of  man  by  making  him  a  hunter  and  giving  him  a  thirst  for 
blood,  whence  originated  war  and  discord  and  turbulence,  the  selfish  thirst  of 
unbounded  possession,  the  atrocities  of  avarice  and  tyranny  and  superstition. 
Under  his  iron  reign  we  live  anticipating  the  destined  period  of  the  restoring 
power. 

When  the  reign  of  the  preserving  spirit  was  ended  he  retired  with  his  genii 
to  the  extremities  of  the  south,  where  he  drew  an  impenetrable  veil  around  the 
bowers  of  his  repose.  The  mariner  then  glides  over  a  boundless  ocean  and  seeks  in 
vain  the  shores  of  the  southern  world. 

And  some  of  his  genii  come  forth  from  time  to  time  to  mingle  with  mankind 
knowing  that  through  their  ministry  must  the  reign  of  the  restorer  be  brought  on. 
Thus  the  world  is  never  totally  abandoned  by  the  spirits  of  good.  Few  indeed  are 
the  favoured  mortals  that  can  know  and  feel  their  influence :  but  to  them  is  given 
an  impulse  and  a  power  of  mind  which  rises  triumphant  over  all  the  tyranny 
of  Ahrimanes.  They  fix  their  eyes  on  the  high  futurity  promised  to  their  posterity 


A.    B.    YOUNG  229 

and  hold  their  steady  course  through  the  evil  of  life  like  the  iron  bark  of  the 
enchanter  through  the  waves  of  the  storm,  which  remained  one  and  indissoluble 
amid  the  wildish  [?  wildest]  conflicts  of  wind  and  sea  which  might  be  submerged 
by  superior  power  but  could  neither  be  changed  nor  broken. 

Such  is  the  picture  of  the  virtuous  man  struggling  with  calamity — a  picture 
which  the  preserver  contemplates  with  joy  from  his  southern  paradise,  which  the 
restorer  hails  with  anticipative  delight  as  the  omen  of  his  terrestrial  reign. 

When  Ahrimanes  first  assumed  his  sway  over  man  and  the  world  his  genii 
rapidly  effected  their  task  of  misery  and  corruption.  Blood  flowed  in  feuds  and  in 
war  at  the  beck  of  tyrants  and  on  the  altar  of  superstition  where  he  was  worshipped 
under  unnumbered  names  by  the  abject  and  terrified  race  of  man.  He  delighted 
in  the  spectacle  of  war  and  desolation :  he  sent  forth  beasts  of  prey  and  signalised 
his  dominion  by  storms  and  earthquakes  and  volcanoes.  Men  fell  prostrate 
before  him  and  only  seemed  emulous  who  should  be  his  most  effectual  votaries. 
But  as  he  threw  his  glance  over  the  world  he  discovered  that  some  of  the  genii  of 
Oromazes  still  lingered  among  mankind  in  the  mountain-vales  and  by  the  shores  of 
the  lonely  torrents  and  that  some  individuals  of  the  human  race  still  resisted 
his  power. 

In  particular  he  distinguished  an  island  in  the  Araxes  where  the  inhabitants 
yet  lived  in  primitive  simplicity.  To  this  island  he  despatched  a  chosen  number 
of  his  genii.  They  effected  their  task  of  corruption  with  rapidity :  but  two  lovers 
Darassah  and  Kelasris  remained  incorruptible.  Against  these  therefore  they 
directed  the  full  torrent  of  their  vengeance.  The  genii  of  Oromazes  watch  over 
their  fate :  but  the  power  of  the  evil  genii  becomes  gradually  superior.  Discord 
and  violence  and  rapine  now  reign  among  the  islanders.  The  father  of  Kelasris 
tears  her  from  Darassah  to  give  her  to  another.  She  flies  to  her  lover's  cottage 
whither  she  is  pursued  but  he  succeeds  in  conveying  her  to  the  shore  of  the 
Araxes  where  they  find  a  boat  in  which  they  embark. 

Descending  the  stream  they  take  refuge  among  some  peasants — worshippers  of 
Oromazes.  An  inundation  of  the  river  destroys  the  village.  Driven  from  their 
asylum  they  wander  a  long  and  weary  way  and  at  length  arrive  at  a  city,  where 
they  observe  innumerable  pictures  of  misery  and  vice.  The  sultan  sees  Kelasris, 
forcibly  takes  her  from  her  lover  and  confines  her  in  his  seraglio.  Darassah  in- 
effectually attempts  to  defend  her  and  is  conveyed  to  a  prison.  At  midnight  the 
city  is  besieged  by  a  hostile  force — taken  and  sacked — the  prison  is  broken  open — 
the  seraglio  is  on  fire.  Darassah  enters  it,  finds  Kelasris  and  escapes  with  her  to 
the  deserts.  They  live  peacefully  in  an  oasis. 

They  discover  a  vast  body  of  sand  rushing  towards  them  from  a  distance. 
They  escape  but  the  oasis  is  buried.  They  fall  into  the  power  of  robbers  who  sell 
them  as  slaves.  Darassah  is  sent  to  labour  in  a  diamond  mine.  The  Ahrimannic 
genius  of  the  mines  addresses  him.  He  escapes  from  the  mine  and  enters  a  deep 
forest.  Despair  and  meditated  suicide.  He  meets  Kelasris  accompanied  by  a 
beautiful  female  who  has  escaped  with  her  from  the  seraglio  to  which  the  Arabs 
had  sold  her.  The  noise  of  pursuit  is  heard.  They  fly.  A  temple  of  Oromazes 
appears  in  view.  The  high  priest  makes  his  appearance.  They  appeal  to  his 
protection  which  he  promises.  The  sultan  appears.  The  priest  says  he  cannot 
oppose  God's  vicegerent  on  earth  and  is  about  to  deliver  up  his  applicants  when  the 
female  companion  of  Kelasris  discovers  herself  to  be  an  Oromazic  genius.  She 
reprobates  the  priest  for  profaning  the  name  of  Oromazes  by  calling  himself  his 
minister  when  he  is  in  reality  the  slave  of  Ahrimanes,  but  as  the  dedication  of  the 
temple  to  his  name  gives  Oromazes  power  over  it  she  will  destroy  it  and  its 
pernicious  minister.  -She  destroys  the  temple,  but  an  Ahrimaunic  genius  inter- 
poses and  saves  the  priest  saying  that  priests  and  kings  are  the  peculiar  objects  of 
the  care  of  Ahrimanes  and  that  while  they  serve  him  faithfully  they  shall  be  safe. 

The  lovers  escape  to  a  city  on  the  shore  of  the  Persian  gulf.  The  city  is  afflicted 
with  famine  and  pestilence.  Darassah  is  seized  by  the  latter.  Kelasris  attends 
him.  He  recovers.  They  embark  on  board  a  vessel  in  the  port  and  sail  into 
the  Pacific  Ocean.  Storm  and  shipwreck.  Darassah  is  thrown  on  shore  and  after- 
wards Kelasris — apparently  dead.  Here  they  find  a  simple  people.  A  volcanic 


230  'A hrimanes'  by  Thomas  Love  Peacock 

eruption  devastates  the  island.  An  Ahrimannic  genius  appears  and  desires  them  to 
pay  homage  to  Ahrimanes.  They  refuse.  The  Oromazic  spirit  appears,  commends 
them  and  tells  them  they  are  worthy  to  participate  in  the  happiness  of  the  southern 
world  :  intermingling  her  speech  with  a  prophecy  of  the  restorer.  She  then  directs 
them  to  embark  in  a  small  boat  which  will  bear  them  to  the  dwellings  of  Oromazes. 
The  poem  concludes  by  depicting  the  submersion  of  the  island  and  the  departure  of 
the  lovers  for  the  southern  world.  The  boat  sails  securely  on,  though  assailed 
by  violent  tempests  raised  by  Ahrimannic  spirits  imaging  the  course  of  virtue 
through  the  storms  of  life. 

It  only  remains  to  conjecture  why  Peacock  did  not  bring  to  a  con- 
clusion this  poem  of  which  he  had  mapped  out  such  a  big  plan  and 
which  he  had  started  in  such  a  promising  way.  Soon  after  he  probably 
began  it  the  first  novel  Headlong  Hall  appeared,  to  be  followed  at  fairly 
regular  intervals  by  four  others.  It  is  true  that  his  most  lengthy 
effort  as  a  poet — Rhododaphne — appeared  in  1818;  but  apart  from  this 
his  attention  was,  for  the  most  part,  turned  aside  from  poetry  and 
directed  into  a  new  channel.  Perhaps  also  he  could  not  reconcile 
himself  with  Mr  Newton's  idea  that  the  restoring  power  should 
eventually  gain  the  upper  hand,  and  did  not  care  to  alter  this  by  de- 
viating from  the  theory  of  the  friend  from  whom  he  had  borrowed 
his  plot.  For  in  spite  of  the  antagonism  to  all  forms  of  revealed 
religion,  and  to  nearly  all  social  institutions  together  with  those  that 
support  them,  which  he  shared  with  Shelley  and  which  he  has  given 
vent  to  in  his  description  of  Ahrimannic  rule,  he  did  not  share  his 
young  friend's  passion  for  reforming  mankind  or  his  enthusiastic  and 
idealistic  belief  in  the  future  destiny  of  the  world.  It  is  therefore 
quite  possible  that  he  did  not  continue  the  narrative  of  Darassah  and 
Kelasris — which  notwithstanding  all  the  obstacles  they  meet  is  dis- 
tinctly a  -record  of  progress — because  he  did  not  wish  to  ridicule 
himself  by  adding  one  more  contradiction  of  his  own  sentiments  and 
convictions  to  the  bundle  of  inconsistencies  which  his  interesting  works 
curiously  enough  contain. 

A.  B.  YOUNG. 

LONDON. 


MISCELLANEOUS   NOTES. 

GASCOIGNE  AND  SHAKSPERE. 

HALPIN'S  theory  (or  rather  Boaden's,  to  give  credit  to  the  true 
originator)  that  a  well-known  passage  in  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream 
(ll,  i,  148 — 168)  refers  to  the  Kenilworth  festivities  has  been  generally 
accepted,  though  the  suggestion  that  Shakspere  described  the  incidents 
from  his  recollection  of  a  visit  made  as  a  boy  of  eleven  seems  fanciful. 
He  is  more  likely  to  have  come  across  the  account  of  the  festivities  in  the 
contemporary  pamphlet,  or  in  the  reprint  of  it  in  Gascoigne's  collected 
works  of  1587,  which  seem  to  have  had  a  large  circulation,  if  one  may 
judge  from  the  numerous  copies  surviving  in  various  libraries.  In 
Gascoigne's  account  we  have  the  '  fireworks  shewed  upon  the  water ' ; 
'  Tryton  in  likenesse  of  a  Mermaide — ..commanding. ..the  waves  to  be 

calme ' ;  and  '  Protheus sitting  on  a  Dolphyns  backe With  in 

the  which   Dolphyn   a   Consort   of  Musicke  was   secretely   placed ' — 
presumably  the  originals  of  the 

mermaid,  on  a  dolphin's  back, 
Uttering  such  dulcet  and  harmonious  breath, 
That  the  rude  sea  grew  civil  at  her  song, 
And  certain  stars  shot  madly  from  their  spheres, 
To  hear  the  sea-maid's  music. 

The  '  fair  vestal  throned  by  the  west '  can  only  be  Elizabeth,  and 
Gascoigne  himself  describes  the  attack  upon  her  heart  which  he  had 
planned  on  Leicester's  behalf.  There  was  prepared  a  'shew'  to  have 
been  presented  before  her  Majesty  in  the  forest,  the  argument  of  which 
was  Diana's  concern  over  the  loss  of  one  of  her  best-beloved  nymphs 
called  Zabeta,  suspe'cted  of  having  been  won  to  the  train  of  Juno. 

'The  Nimphes  returne  one  after  another  in  quest  of  Zabeta  :  at  last  Diana  her 
selfe  returning  and  hearing  no  newes  of  her,  invoketh  the  helpe  of  her  Father 
Jupiter.  Mercuric  commeth  downe  in  a  cloude  sent  by  Jupiter  to  recomfort  Dyana, 
and  bringeth  her  unto  Zabeta  :  Dyana  rejoyceth,  and  after  much  freendly  discourse 
departeth  :  affying  her  selfe  in  Zabetaes  prudence  and  pollicie  :  She  and  Mercuric 
(being  departed)  Iris  commeth  downe  from  the  Rainebowe  sent  by  Juno  :  Perswad- 


232  Miscellaneous  Notes 

ing  the  Queenes  Majestie  that  she  be  not  caryed  away  with  Mercuries  filed  speach, 
nor  Dyanaes  faire  words,  but  that  she  consider  all  things  by  proofe,  and  then  shee 
shall  nnde  much  greater  cause  to  followe  Juno  then  Dyana.' 

It  would  be  no  wonder  if  the  Queen  refused  to  give  ear  to  the 
uncommonly  direct  hint  contained  in  the  concluding  words  of  Iris : 

Then  geve  consent  O  Queene, 

to  Junoes  just  desire 
Who  for  your  wealth  would  have  you  wed, 

and  for  your  farther  hire 
Some  Empresse  wil  you  make, 

she  bad  me  tell  you  thus : 
Forge ve  me  (Queene)  the  words  are  hers, 

I  come  not  to  discusse. 
I  am  but  Messenger, 

but  sure  she  bade  me  say, 
That  where  you  now  in  Princely  port, 

have  past  one  pleasant  day  : 
A  world  of  wealth  at  wil, 

you  hencefoorth  shall  enjoy 
In  wedded  state,  and  therewithall, 

holde  up  from  great  annoy 
The  staffe  of  your  estate : 

O  Queene,  0  worthy  Queene, 
Yet  never  wight  felt  perfect  blis, 

but  such  as  wedded  beene. 

'  This  shewe  was  devised  and  penned  by  M.  Gascoigne,  and  being  prepared  and 
redy  (every  Actor  in  his  garment)  two  or  three  dayes  together,  yet  never  came  to 
execution.  The  cause  whereof  I  cannot  attribute  to  any  other  thing,  then  to  lack 
of  opportunitie  and  seasonable  weather.' 

The  weather  was  evidently  wet,  and  the  Queen  hastened  her 
departure,  in  spite  of  the  lamentations  of  '  Deepe  desire '  from  the  holly 
bush. 

The  imperial  votaress  passed  on, 
In  maiden  meditation,  fancy-free. 

'Deepe  desire'  was  long  ago  identified  by  Nicholls  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  Leicester's  aspirations  and  regrets,  but  '  Due  desert,'  the 
other  of  the  '  two  sworne  brethren  which  long  time  served  hyr,'  has  not 
yet  been  satisfactorily  interpreted.  Yet  it  is  obvious  that  some  personal 
reference  is  intended  by  Gascoigne's  mysterious  phrases : 

'  She  dyd  long  sithens  convert  Due  desert  into  yonder  same  Lawrell  tree.  The 
which  may  very  well  be  so,  consideryng  the  Etimologie  of  his  name,  for  we  see  that 
the  Lawrel  braunch  is  a  token  of  triumph,  in  all  Tropheis  and  given  as  a  reward  to 
all  Victors,  a  dignitie  for  all  degrees,  consecrated  and  dedicate  to  Apollo  and  the 
Muses  as  a  worthie  flower,  leafe  or  braunch,  for  their  due  deserts.  Of  him  I  will 
hold  no  longer  discourse,  because  hee  was  Metomorphosed  before  my  tyrne,  for  your 
Majestie  must  xmderstand  that  I  have  not  long  helde  this  charge.' 

Might  not  Walter  Devereux,  Earl  of  Essex,  be  intended  by  '  Due 
desert'  ?  In  the  previous  March  he  had  been  appointed  Earl  Marshall 


Miscellaneous  Notes  233 

of  Ireland,  and  he  was  away  campaigning  at  the  time  of  the  Kenilworth 
festivities.  He  had  some  reputation,  not  only  as  a  general,  but  as  a 
man  of  letters ;  he  was  said  to  be  particularly  interested  in  the  study  of 
history,  and  there  are  extant  certain  poems  which  are  ascribed  to  him. 
His  house,  Chartley  Castle,  was  the  next  great  estate  Elizabeth  visited 
on  this  progress.  There  she  was  entertained  by  Lettice,  Countess  of 
Essex,  who  had  been  present  at  Kenilworth,  and  who,  according  to  the 
received  interpretation  of  the  passage  in  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream, 
was  the  '  little  western  flower,'  upon  whom  '  the  bolt  of  Cupid  fell.'  It 
is  certain  that  Leicester's  attentions  to  her  had  by  this  time  already 
begun  to  excite  remark,  and  that  he  was  secretly  married  to  her  within 
two  years  of  her  husband's  death. 

Mr  Dover  Wilson  has  suggested  that  in  the  prologue  to  Pyramm 
and  Thisbe  Shakspere  was  parodying  Gascoigne's  prologue  to  The  Glasse 
of  Governement.  It  is  in  the  same  measure  (?  Bottom's  '  eight  and 
eight '),  with  the  same  arrangement  of  alternate  rhymes  ending  with  a 
couplet;  and  there  is  possibly  an  intentional  echo  of  Gascoigne's 
unhappy  phrases : 

What  man  hath  minde  to  heare  a  worthie  Jest, 
Or  seekes  to  feede  his  eye  with  vayne  delight : 
That  man  is  much  unmeete  to  be  a  guest, 
At  such  a  feaste  as  I  prepare  this  night. 

This  disavowal  of  the  intent  to  please  might  be  ludicrously  recalled 
by  Quince's  '  If  we  offend,  it  is  with  our  good  will ' ;  and  Shakspere's 
later  lines : 

We  do  not  come,  as  minding  to  content  you, 
Our  true  intent  is, 

reproduced  the  very  words  of  Gascoigne's  prologue 

Content  you  then  (my  Lordes)  with  good  intent, 
though  the  resemblance  may  be  merely  accidental. 

JOHN  W.  CUNLIFFE. 
MADISON,  Wis.  U.S.A. 

THE  TITLE  OF  BURTON'S  'ANATOMY  OF  MELANCHOLY.' 

Robert  Burton  in  the  first  part  of  the  title-page  of  his  Anatomy 
(or  Melancholy,  as  it  should  rather  be  called1)  might  seem  to  be  indebted 
to  a  passage  in  Salustius  Salvianus'  Variarum  Lectionum  de  re  medica 

1  Cf.  the  Appendix  to  Burton's  Will,  where  he  leaves  'half  my  Melancholy  Copy'  to 
be  disposed  of  by  his  executors. 


234  Miscellaneous  Notes 

libri  tres,  lib.  ii,  cap.  1  ('De  Melancholia  &  Mania  morbo,  &  eius 
curatione '),  p.  95,  Rome,  1588  (the  edition  which  Burton  apparently 
used) :  '  Quinque  a  nobis  veniunt  consideranda  de  Melancholia,  &  Mania, 
primo  quid  sit,  secundo  quaenam  sint  causae  huius  affectionis,  tertio 
signa,  quarto  prognosticum,  quinto,  &  vltimo  curationem '  [sic].  Compare 
'  The  |  Anatomy  of  |  Melancholy :  |  What  it  is.  |  With  all  the  Kindes, 
Cav-  ses,  Sy mptomes,  Prognosticks,  |  and  Severall  Cvres  of  it '  (Second 
edition1,  1624).  Burton  frequently  quotes  from  Salustius  Salvianus. 

But  the  division  here  employed  was  not  uncommon.  See  Partition  1, 
sect.  1,  memb.  1,  subs.  3,  '  which  [sc.  the  diseases  of  the  mind]  I  will 
briefly  touch  and  point  out,  insisting  especially  in  this  of  Melancholy,  as 
more  eminent  then  the  rest,  and  that  through  all  his  kindes,  causes, 
symptomes,  prognostickes,  cures  :  As  Lonicerus  hath  done  de  Apoplexid, 
and  many  others,  of  many  such  particular  diseases.' 

In  any  case  this  division,  like  so  much  else  in  Burton's  book,  is  no 
quaintness  or  peculiarity  of  the  author,  but  something  natural  to  anyone 
writing  a  serious  and  practical  treatise  on  the  subject. 

EDWARD  BENSLY. 

ABERYSTWYTH. 


CHAUCER'S  CAPTIVITY. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Chaucer  was  taken  prisoner  in  the 
French  Campaign  of  1359-60,  and  that  he  himself  testifies,  in  the 
Scrope-Grosvenor  case,  that  before  his  captivity  he  saw  Sir  Richard 
Scrope  'before  the  town  of  Retters.'  This  Sir  Harris  Nicolas  would 
have  identified  with  Retiers  in  Brittany;  but  modern  editors  had  far 
more  probably  conjectured  Rethel  in  the  Ardennes.  This  conjecture  is 
proved  beyond  doubt  by  a  passage  in  Sir  Thomas  Gray's  Scalacronica, 
which  I  here  subjoin : 

Le  prince  [de  Galles]  tient  soun  auant  dit  chemin  par  Seint  Quyntin  &  par 
Retieris,  ou  ly  enemys  meismes  arderoint  lour  vile  pur  destourber  lour  passage,  lea 
gentz  de  qi  conquistrent  passage  au  chastel  Purcien,  ou  passa  par  Champain,  aprocha 
lost  soun  pier  adeuant  de  Reyns.  (Scalacronica,  ed.  Stevenson.  Maitland  Club, 
1836,  p.  188.) 

Gray's  information  about  Edward  Ill's  campaigns  is  unusually 
detailed  and  trustworthy;  and  from  this  passage  it  plainly  appears 
(i)  that  Retieris  =  Rethel ;  for  Chateau-Porcien  is  a  large  village  in 
the  arrondissement  of  Rethel,  and  (ii)  that  Chaucer  was  in  the  Black 

1  I  quote  from  this  edition  as  the  first  is  not  at  hand. 


Miscellaneous  Notes  235 

Prince's  division — for  Edward  had  divided  his  great  army  into  three 
columns,  commanded  by  himself,  the  Black  Prince,  and  Henry  Duke  of 
Lancaster,  which  effected  a  junction  at  Reims.  Interesting  details  of 
the  route  of  Chaucer's  division,  and  the  fighting  by  the  way,  are  given 
by  Gray  a  few  lines  above  this  passage. 

G.  G.  COULTON. 
EASTBOURNE. 


'  PIERCE  THE  PLOWMANS  CREDE,'  372. 

Leeue  it  well,  lef  man1  and  men  ry3t-lokede, 
per  is  more  pryue  pride'  in  Free-hours  hertes 
pan  f>er  lefte  in  Lucyfer  er  he  were  lowe  fallen. 

Both  in  his  Specimens  of  English  Literature,  1394-1579,  and  in  his 
recent  edition  of  the  Crede  (1906),  Professor  Skeat  explains  <ry3t-lokede' 
as  'righteous,  just,'  from  A.-S.  'rihtlic,'  with  which  it  seems  difficult  to 
connect  it  phonetically.  Is  it  possible  that  the  hyphen  is  wrong,  and 
that  the  phrase  means  '  if  one  looked  (i.e.  observed)  aright '  ?  '  Men  ' 
would  then  be  the  phonetic  weakening  of  '  man,'  as  in  Chaucer,  C.  T., 
Prologue,  149,  '  Or  if  men  smoot  it  with  a  yerde  smerte.'  Stratmann 
gives  four  instances  of  the  form  '  lokede '  in  M.E. 

W.  H.  WILLIAMS. 
HOBART,  TASMANIA. 


OCCLEVE,  'DE  REGIMINE  PRINCIPUM,'  299,  621. 

Also  who  was  hyer  in  philosofye 
To,  Aristotle  in  our  tunge  but  thow  1 

Professor  Skeat  in  the  glossary  to  his  Specimens  explains  '  hyer '  as 
'  higher.'  But  should  not  the  right  reading  be  '  heyr '  = '  heir '  ?  Can 
one  say  '  higher  to '  for  '  higher  than '  ?  Besides,  if  this  were  possible, 
the  context  is  against  it.  Occleve  in  his  Lament  for  Chaucer,  says  of 
the  poet,  '  to  Tullius,  was  neuer  man  so  like  amonges  vs,'  and  '  The 
steppes  of  Virgile  in  poysye  thou  folwedest  eke.'  Is  it  likely,  considering 
the  estimation  of  Aristotle  in  the  middle  ages,  that  Occleve  would  make 
Chaucer  his  superior  in  philosophy,  after  making  him  only  equal  to 
Cicero  in  rhetoric  and  inferior  to  Virgil  in  poetry  ?  Whereas  to  make 
him  his  '  heir '  would  be  perfectly  consistent. 


236  Miscellaneous  Notes 

But  or  they  twynned  thens  they  pekked  moode. 

Professor  Skeat  explains  '  pekked  moode '  as  '  pecked  mud ;  or,  as  we 
should  now  say,  ate  dirt.'  But,  apart  from  the  improbability  of  '  mud ' 
being  spelt  'moode,'  the  phrase  occurs  in  Skelton,  Against  the  Scottes 
(Dyce,  I,  p.  189),  '  Who  so  therat  pyketh  mood,  The  tokens  are  not  good 
To  be  true  Englysh  blood,'  where  Dyce  explains  it  as  'grows  angry, 
picks  a  quarrel,'  and  this  meaning  suits  both  passages. 

W.  H.  WILLIAMS. 
HOBART,  TASMANIA. 


FRAGMENT  OF  AN  UNKNOWN  MIDDLE  ENGLISH  POEM. 

The  following  poem  is  found  in  a  manuscript  copy  of  a  late  thirteenth 
century  law  treatise  at  Lincoln's  Inn,  Hale  135.  What  are  now  the 
fly-leaves  were  originally  the  covers  of  this  manuscript.  Two  of  these 
leaves  contain  a  mass  of  memoranda  relating  to  one  Alan  de  Thornton 
and  extending  in  chronological  order  from  1297  to  1311.  The  poem  is 
written  at  the  top  of  a  page  and  immediately  before  a  memorandum  for 
31  Edward  I.  Although  written  in  a  hand  different  to  that  of  any  of 
the  other  entries  it  is  clearly  of  the  same  period,  and  there  is  no  reason 
for  doubting  that  it  was  inserted  before  the  memoranda  which  follow  it. 
We  may  therefore  date  it  at  least  as  early  as  1303.  Unfortunately  that 
part  of  the  poem  which  was  written  near  the  outer  edge  of  the  page  has 
become  so  rubbed  and  worn  that  some  of  the  words  are  obliterated. 

No(w)  spri(nke)s  the  sprai.   al  for  loue  icche  am  so  seeke  that  slepen 

ine  mai.    this  endre  dai  als(  )i  me  rode  o  mi s. .  .h(  )i  hwar  a  litel  mai 

bigan  to  singge.  the  clot  him  clingges  wai  es  him  i  louue  l(on)g(in)ge 
sal  libben  ai.  Nou  sprinkes,  etc.  Son  icche  herde  that  mirie  note  yider 
i  drogh  i  fonde  hire... an  herber  swot  under  a  bogh.  With  ioie  inogh. 
son  i  asked  thou  mirie  mai  hwi  sinkes  tou  ai  ?  Nou  sprinkes  the  sprai, 
etc.  than  answerde  that  maiden  swote  midde  wordes  fewe.  mi  lemman 
me  haues  bi  hot  of  louue  trewe.  he  chaunges  a  newe.  thiif  i  mai  it  shal 
him  rewe.  bi  this  dai.  Now  sprinkes. 

GEORGE  E.  WOODBINE. 

LONDON. 


Miscellaneous  Notes  237 


DANTE,  'DE  VULGARI  ELOQUENTIA,'  i,  vii. 

Since  the  appearance  of  the  July  number  of  this  Review,  containing 
a  note  from  me  on  the  phrase  '  non  ante  tertium  equitabis,'  I  have  learnt 
from  Mr  A.  G.  Ferrers  Howell  that  a  similar  explanation  was  suggested 
in  a  note  to  the  second  edition  of  his  translation  of  the  De  Vulgari 
Eloquentia  (Dent,  1904).  I  regret  that  I  overlooked  his  prior  publica- 
tion; and  rejoice  to  find  that  an  interpretation  which  I  have  for  the 
last  dozen  years  felt  certain  was  the  true  one,  is  confirmed  by  his 
authority  and  that  of  Mr  Wicksteed,  the  general  editor  of  Dante  for 
the  series. 

A.  J.  BUTLER. 

LONDON. 


DISCUSSIONS. 


THE  LOCALITY  OF  -'KING  LEAK,'  ACT  i,  SCENE  ii. 

Mr  Hunter,  in  his  acute  and  interesting  Note  in  the  last  number  of 
the  Modern  Language  Review,  has  given  reasons  for  thinking  that  the 
scene  of  King  Lear,  i,  ii,  is  still  that  of  I,  i,  and  not,  as  since  Pope  has 
been  generally  assumed,  Gloucester's  castle.  And  he  believes  that, 
when  this  is  recognised,  the  apparent  improbabilities  of  I,  ii  disappear. 
As  in  my  Shakespearean  Tragedy  I  have  dwelt  on  these  improbabilities, 
and  as  Mr  Hunter  refers  to  me,  I  should  like  to  say  a  few  words  on  his 
Note. 

He  has  succeeded,  I  think,  in  showing  (1)  that,  if  we  confine  our 
attention  to  i,  ii,  we  may  most  naturally  take  the  scene  to  be  that  of 
i,  i ;  (2)  that,  accordingly,  we  may  suppose  Gloucester,  Edmund,  and 
Edgar  to  be  living  under  three  separate  roofs1 ;  (3)  that  on  this  suppo- 
sition some  of  the  improbabilities  of  i,  ii  are  considerably  reduced  (I 
cannot  say  more  than  this,  but  I  leave  the  question  undiscussed).  His 
success  confirms  the  very  important  rule  that  we  ought  never  to  accept 
without  question  the  stage-directions  of  our  editions.  This  rule  I  have 
tried  to  observe,  and  it  should  have  led  me  to  suspect  that  Pope's 
stage-direction  here  was  wrong. 

Mr  Hunter's  success,  however,  depends  on  a  condition ;  and  this 
condition  is  that  we  confine  our  attention  to  I,  ii.  Now  obviously  it  is 
not  safe  to  do  this.  And,  if  we  extend  our  limits,  what  is  the  result  ? 

After  I,  ii,  'the  scene  in  which  the  Gloucester  interest  is  next  resumed' 
is  n,  i ;  and  here  the  scene,  says  Mr  Hunter,  is  undoubtedly  laid,  where 
it  is  usually  placed,  at  Gloucester's  castle  (or  house,  as  Shakespeare 
calls  it).  Now  between  I,  ii  and  n,  i  a  great  deal  has  happened.  The 
Fool  has  had  time  to  pine  away ;  there  are  rumours  of  dissension 
between  Cornwall  and  Albany;  Lear,  who  has  been  staying  with 
Goneril,  and  has  observed  a  change  in  her  treatment  of  him,  has 
quarrelled  with  her ;  he  sets  out  to  go  to  Regan,  and,  finding  that  she 
has  left  home  for  Gloucester's  house,  he  is  coming  on  there.  Thus  the 
interval  between  I,  ii  and  n,  i  cannot  be  short,  whether  or  no  we 

1  This,  however,  is  not  'clearly  suggested,'  much  less  'actually  proved,'  by  the  explicit 
mention  of  Edmund's  '  lodging.'  The  word  in  Shakespeare  may  perfectly  well  mean  a 
mere  room.  See  Schmidt. 


Discussions  239 

suppose  that  Lear's  words  '  within  a  fortnight '  (i,  iv,  316)  give  an  indi- 
cation of  its  length1. 

What  then  have  Gloucester,  Edmund  and  Edgar  been  doing  during 
this  interval  ?  According  to  Mr  Hunter,  in  I,  ii,  on  the  day  after  the 
events  of  I,  i,  they  are  still  at  the  place  where  those  events  occurred.  I 
do  not  know  why  he  calls  this  place  a  'city, 'but  at  any  rate  it  is  a  place 
where  Gloucester,  Edmund,  and  Edgar  are  supposed  to  be  under  three 
separate  roofs.  Edmund  shows  the  forged  letter  to  his  father.  He  is 
told  to  find  Edgar  and  to  apprehend  him.  He  objects  to  the  latter  order, 
but  promises  to  arrange  for  the  father  to  overhear  a  conversation 
between  the  sons  on  the  subject  of  the  letter,  'and  that  without  any 
further  delay  than  this  very  evening.'  He  then  persuades  Edgar  to 
keep  out  of  his  father's  way  for  the  present,  to  retire  to  his  (Edmund's) 
lodging,  and,  if  he  stirs  abroad,  to  go  armed.  The  idea  suggested  is 
that  the  scene  enacted  in  n,  i  is  to  take  place  at  once,  this  very  evening. 
But  it  does  not ;  and  when  next  (in  n,  i)  we  meet  with  Gloucester  and 
his  sons,  that  considerable  interval  has  elapsed.  Edmund,  for  some 
reason  left  totally  unexplained,  has  failed  to  produce  Edgar;  and, 
during  the  interval,  not  only  have  Gloucester  and  Edmund  gone  into 
the  country,  but  Edgar  has  gone  too.  And  he  has  gone  to  the  same 
place!  While  his  father  has  set  guard  to  catch  him,  he  is  concealed 
somewhere  upstairs  in  his  father's  house  (ii,  i,  19).  Could  anything  be 
much  more  improbable, — except  indeed  Edgar's  subsequent  exploit  of 
returning  from  his  hollow  tree  to  his  father's  house  in  order  to  deliver 
a  soliloquy  (see  Shakesp.  Tragedy,  p.  260)  ?  And,  curious  to  relate, 
the  place  where  we  find  Edgar  in  ii,  i,  seems  to  us.  as  we  read,  to  be 
just  the  place  where,  on  the  old  hypothesis,  we  left  him  in  i,  ii, 
Edmund's  room  in  Gloucester's  house  in  the  country. 

What  is  the  conclusion  ?  That  Mr  Hunter's  supposition  is  wrong  ? 
I  do  not  say  that.  But  I  say  that,  on  his  supposition  and  on  any 
other,  the  story  is  here  grossly  improbable,  and  the  place-indications 
misty  in  the  extreme. 

I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  of  any  use  to  go  further ;  but,  if  we 
must  make  a  hypothesis,  perhaps  the  most  probable  is  this.  Shake- 
speare, if  he  imagined  any  place  at  all  for  I,  ii  (and  I  think  it  improbable 
that  he  did  not),  imagined  the  place  of  i,  i.  But  it  was  not  necessary 
for  stage  purposes  to  indicate  a  place,  and  he  may  have  known  that  the 
spectators  would  .not  trouble  their  heads  about  the  matter,  and  still  less 
about  the  question  of  one  roof  or  three.  In  n,  i,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
was  necessary  to  have  a  definite  place,  for  the  plot  required  that  almost 
all  the  chief  persons  should  meet  at  Gloucester's  house  in  the  country. 
So  he  put  Edgar  into  concealment  in  his  father's  house,  confident  that 
the  spectators  would  not  ask  the  awkward  question  how  and  when  he 
got  there.  We,  in  studying  the  play,  ask  this  question ;  and  a  stage- 
manager  now  has  to  ask  it,  because  in  our  theatre  everything  happens 

1  This,  I  tbiuk,  is  the  obvious  interpretation,  and  it  is  that  of  Mr  Daniel  in  his  Time- 
analysis.  But  the  meaning  might  be  that  Lear  was  required  to  dismiss  fifty  of  his  knights 
within  the  next  fortnight. 


240  Discussions 

somewhere  in  particular,  and  not  on  a  bare  platform  as  universal  as  the* 
world.  He  would  do  best,  I  incline  to  think,  to  put  I,  ii  where  Pope 
put  it,  and  to  excise  the  indications  of  time.  He  would  thus  avoid  the 
absurdity  which  follows  on  Mr  Hunter's  view, — a  view,  however,  which 
(apart  from  the  question  of  the  three  roofs)  seems  to  me  probably 
correct. 

I  should  like  to  associate  myself  with  Mr  Hunter  in  his  praise  of 
Dr  Perrett's  excellent  study1. 

A.  C.  BRADLEY. 

LONDON. 


WYATT  AND  THE  FRENCH  SONNETEERS. 

IN  a  short  note  appended  to  his  interesting  article  The  Elizabethan 
Sonneteers  and  the  French  Poets*,  Prof.  Kastner  denies  my  thesis3  that 
Saint-Gelais  translated  the  sonnet  '  Voyant  ces  monts  de  veue  ainsi 
lointaine '  from  Wyatt.  His  comment  is :  '  This  is  a  priori  highly 
improbable,  and  Mr  Berdan's  arguments  do  not  convince  me.'  To 
convince  Prof.  Kastner  I  must  show  that  a  priori  the  situation  is 
sufficiently  probable  to  merit  consideration.  This  might  be  done  by 
citing  the  few  other  borrowings  in  the  French  from  the  English — as 
is  notably  the  case  of  Chaucer — by  showing  that  the  English  language 
was  understood  at  the  Court  of  France — a  condition  which  is  histori- 
cally probable — or  by  proving  that  the  Italian  influence,  Petrarchismo, 
reached  England  before  it  reached  France.  If  this  last  be  true, 
a  priori  my  contention  is  not  highly  improbable.  This,  then,  is  the 
way  I  shall  try  to  meet  the  question. 

The  possibility  of  confusion  here  arises  from  the  fact  that,  while 
Tottel's  Miscellany  represents  the  work  of  a  past  generation,  it  was  not 
published  until  1557,  eight  years  later  than  the  beginning  of  the 
Pleiade.  Thus  it  is  easy  to  class  it  mentally  as  the  first  of  the  Eliza- 

1  A  word  must  l>e  added  on  a  small  matter.     I  remarked  in  my  book  that  Gloucester 
appears  to  be  unacquainted  with  his  son's  handwriting.     Mr  Hunter  quotes  Gloucester's 
words,  'It  is  his'  (i,  ii,  66),  and  suggests  tbat  I  may  have  overlooked  them.     My  remark 
was  hardly  worth  making,  but  it  represented  my  interpretation  of  the  passage,  which  runs 
thus  in  the  Folio  : 

Glou.     You  know  the  character  to  be  your  Brothers? 

Bast.     If  the  matter  were  good  my  Lord,  I  durst  swear  it  were  his :  but  in  respect  of 
that,  I  would  faiue  thinke  it  were  not. 

Glou.     It  is  his. 

Bast.  It  is  his  hand,  my  Lord :  but  I  hope  his  heart  is  not  in  the  Contents. 
I  took  'It  is  his,'  following  Gloucester's  question,  to  be  an  instance  of  his  feebleness  in 
allowing  himself  to  be  guided  by  Edmund,  a  trait  strongly  marked  in  this  scene.  I  was 
not  satisfied,  however,  that  the  Folio  reading  is  right.  Ql  reads  'It  is  his?'  and  Q2 
'Is  it  his?'  and  the  readings  of  the  Quartos  are  frequently  superior  to  those  of  the 
Folio.  I  used  the  words  '  appears  to  be '  to  show  that  I  did  not  regard  my  interpretation, 
which  I  still  think  the  most  probable,  as  certain. 

2  Modern  Language  Review,  April  1908. 

3  Modern  Language  Notes,  February  1908. 


Discussions  241 

bethan  type,  where  the  normal  method  was  to  borrow  from  the  French. 
Prof.  Kastner  himself  has  done  such  notable  work  in  the  English 
imitations  of  Ronsard,  Du  Bellay,  and  Desportes1,  that  no  more  need  be 
said.  His  last  article  blighted  the  hopes  of  rny  colleague,  Mr  McCune, 
who  had  in  manuscript  Daniel's  indebtedness  to  Du  Bellay.  Even  here 
the  Italian  cannot  be  ignored.  Lodge's  sonnet,  Phillis,  xxvin,  '  Not 
causeless  were  you  christened,  gentle  flowers,'  is  a  fairly  close  rendition 
of  Ariosto's  fourth  sonnet,  '  Non  senza  causa  il  giglio  e  1'  amaranto.' 
But  the  general  tendency  among  Elizabethan  writers  is  markedly 
towards  translation  from  the  French. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  one  considers  the  writers  of  Tottel, 
especially  Wyatt,  not  as  Elizabethan  but  as  Tudor  sonneteers,  the  same 
statement  does  not  hold.  As  yet,  aside  from  Prof.  Koeppel's  article  in 
Anglia2,  to  my  knowledge  not  a  single  French  original  has  been  found 
for  the  poems  of  Wyatt,  while  Italian  sources  are  manifold.  Of  the 
two  coincidences  between  Wyatt  and  Saint-Gelais  mentioned  by  Prof. 
Koeppel,  one,  '  Like  to  these  unmesurable  montayns,'  whatever  may  be 
the  direct  original  of  the  Saint-Gelais,  has  been  discovered  by  Mr  Tilley, 
Prof.  Kastner  and  myself,  three  separate  times,  to  be  a  translation 
from  Sannazaro — Italian,  not  French.  The  other,  while  undoubtedly 
similar,  is  yet  so  different  in  detail  that  it  suggests  rather  a  common 
original  as  yet  unknown.  The  stock  of  ideas  and  expressions  left  in 
gavelkind  by  Petrarch  was  so  shared  in  common3  that  the  employment 
of  the  same  conceit,  unless  accompanied  with  close  verbal  similarity, 
proves  little  but  a  common  literary  parentage.  Wyatt,  moreover,  nor- 
mally translates  from  the  beginning4.  All  his  poems  that  have  been 
identified  are  Italian. 

1  Athenaeum,  4017,  4018.  -  Emil  Koeppel,  Anglia,  xm,  77. 

3  Compare  the  reasoning  on  pp.  6 — 7  of  Mr  Ingraham's  Sources  of  Les  Amours  de  Jean 
Antoine  de  Baif,  Columbus,  Ohio,  1905. 

4  As  this  reasoning  applies  also  to  the  indebtedness  of  Wyatt  to  Seraphino,  pointed 
out  by  Prof.  Koeppel  (Romanische  Forschungen,  v,  67),  to  prove  this  point  I  add  the  first 
lines  of  those  poems  only  of  which  there  can  be  question.     The  references  are  to  Arber's 
reprint  of  Tottel  and  to  Mestica's  edition  of  Le  Rime. 

P.  33  :    The  long  love,  that  in  my  thought  I  harbor 

Son.  109  :    Amor,  che  nel  penser  mio  vive  e  regna. 

P.  33  :   Yet  I  was  ever  of  your  love  agreed 

Son.  6]  :   lo  uon  fu'  d'  amar  voi  lassato  unquanco. 

P.  34  :   The  lively  sparks,  that  issue  from  those  eyes 

Son.  220  :   Vive  faville  uscian  de'  duo  bei  lumi. 

P.  35  :    Such  vain  thought  as  wonted  to  mislead  me 

Son.  136  :  Pien  d'  un  vago  penser,  che  me  desvia. 

P.  37  :    Cesar,  what  that  the  traytour  of  Egypt 

Son.  81 :   Cesare,  poiche  '1  traditor  d'  Egitto 

P.  38  :   Some  fowles  there  be,  that  have  so  perfect  sight 

Son.  17:    Son  animali  al  mondo  de  si  altera  (vista). 

P.  38  :   Because  I  still  kept  thee  fro  lyes,  and  blame 

Son.  41 :   Perch'  io  t'  abbia  guardato  di  menzogna. 

P.  39 :   I  find  no  peace,  and  all  my  warre  is  done 

Son.  104 :   Pace  non  trovo,  e  non  6  da  far  guerra. 

P.  39 :   My  galley  is  charged  with  forgetfulnesse 

Son.  156 :   Passa  la  nave  mia  colma  d'  oblio. 

P.  40 :   Avisyng  the  bright  beames  of  those  fair  eyes 

Son.  140;    Mirando  '1  Sol  de'  begli  occhi  sereno. 

M.  L.  K.  IV.  16 


242  Discussions 

The  reason  for  this  vast  preponderance  of  Italian  influence  over  the 
French  is  shown  by  a  comparison  of  the  dates.  There  is  no  question 
but  that  Wyatt  travelled  in  both  countries.  His  first  visit  to  France 
was  in  1526,  when  he  was  twenty-three  years  old.  The  following  year  he 
spent  in  Italy,  visiting  Venice,  Ferrara,  Bologna,  Florence  and  Rome1. 
To  a  man  of  taste  there  could  be  no  comparison  between  the  literatures. 
The  Cinquecento  was  then  at  its  prime.  Is  it  any  wonder  then  that 
Wyatt  fell  under  the  influence  of  the  Petrarchisti  and  brought  back 
with  him  the  Italian  manner  ?  This  consists  in  form,  of  a  preference 
for  the  sonnet,  the  ode,  the  madrigal,  rather  than  the  rhyme  royal,  the 
couplet,  the  rondeau ;  in  substance,  of  platonic  idealization  expressed 
by  various  rhetorical  devices.  It  is  possible  to  have  the  form  alone — 
as  is  the  case  of  Clement  Marot — or  the  substance  alone — as  is  the  case 
with  Maurice  Sceve ;  Wyatt  has  them  both. 

Not  only  was  Petrarchismo  imported  into  England  by  Wyatt,  but  it 
reached  England  before  it  reached  France.  Again  the  difficulty  lies  in 
the  fact  that  the  dates  of  publication  are  fallacious  because  the  works 
circulated  in  manuscript.  Thus  although  Tottel  was  not  published 
until  1557,  as  Wyatt  had  died  in  1542,  it  is  the  earlier  date  only  which 
needs  to  be  considered2.  The  question  then  narrows  down  to  whether 
it  be  possible  to  find  Petrarchismo  in  France  written,  not  printed, 
before  1540.  To  answer  this  a  short  analysis  of  French  literature 
before  1550  becomes  necessary.  It  may  be  discussed  under  four  fairly 
distinct  heads3. 

1.  Les  grands  rhetoriqueurs.  2.  Clement  Marot  and  his  school. 
3.  The  precursors  of  the  Pleiade.  4.  The  Pleiade  itself.  Leaving  the 
first  aside,  because  there  can  be  no  question  of  Petrarchismo  there,  we 
shall  discuss  them  in  the  reverse  order,  considering  only  those  poets 
who  have  been  considered  in  this  discussion. 

With  regard  to  the  Pleiade,  we  are    fortunate  in  having   definite 

P.  68  :   Even  my  hap  is  slack  and  slowe  in  commyng 
Son.  44  :   Mie  venture  al  venir  son  tarde  e  pigre. 
P.  69 :   Love,  Fortune,  and  my  minde  which  do  remember 
Son.  99  :   Amor,  Fortuna  et  la  mia  mente,  schiva. 
P.  69  :    How  oft  have  I,  my  deare  and  cruell  fo 
Son.  19 :    Mille  fiate,  o  dolce  mia  guerrera. 
P.  70 :   Like  unto  these  unmesurable  montayns 
Sannazaro :    Simile  a  questo  smisurati  monti.     (Pt.  3,  son.  3.) 
P.  70 :    If  amourous  fayth,  or  if  an  hart  unfained 
Son.  188:    S'  una  fede  amorosa,  un  cor  non  finto. 
P.  72  :   The  pillar  perisht  is  whereto  I  lent 
Son.  229 :   Kotta  e  1'  alta  Colonna  e  '1  verde  Lauro. 
P.  73 :    Go  burning  sighes  unto  the  frosen  hart 
Son.  120  :   Ite,  caldi  sospiri,  al  freddo  core.     (First  quatrain  only.) 
P.  73 :   So  feble  is  the  tbred,  that  doth  the  burden  stay 
Canz.  4 :   Si  fe  debile  il  filo,  a  cui  s'  attene  (canzone). 
Whereas  the  first  five  of  the  eight  lines  of  Wyatt  have  no  similarity  with  Saint-Gelais. 

1  Proved  by  a  letter  from  Sir  Thomas  Cheney,  Gairdner,  Domestic  Letters  and  Papers 
of  the  Reian  of  Henry  VIII,  iv,  2135. 

2  John  Bruce,  Gentleman's  Magazine,  1850,  page  258. 

3  This  classification  follows  the  general  line  of  manuals  of  French  literature ;  e.g.  Petit 
de  Julleville,  Brunetiere,  Darmesteter,  Faguet,  and  Tilley. 


Discussions  243 

dates.  The  published  work  begins  with  the  Defense  and  L'Olive  of 
Du  Bellay  and  the  Erreurs  Amoureuses  of  Tyard,  all  three  in  1549. 
M.  Marty- Laveaux3  in  his  introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  last  asserts 
that  this  was  composed  as  early  as  1543.  Granting  that,  the  earliest 
date  assigned  to  the  composition  of  any  of  the  work  of  the  Pleiade,  we 
have  the  year  after  Wyatt's  death  when  Surrey  had  only  four  years  to 
live.  With  Du  Bellay  we  are  upon  still  firmer  ground.  In  the  preface 
to  the  1550  edition  of  the  Olive  he  says'2 : 

Voulant  donques  enrich  ir  nostre  vulgaire  d'une  nouuelle,  ou  plustost  ancienne 
renouuellee  poesie,  ie  m'adonnay  k  1'irn  irritation  des  anciens  Latins,  &  des  poetes 
Italians,  dont  i'ay  entendu  ce  que  m'en  a  pen  apprendre  la  communication  familiere 
de  mes  amis.  Ce  fut  pourquoy,  k  la  persuasion  de  laque  Peletier,  ie  choisi  le 
Sonnet,  &  1'Ode,  deux  poemes  de  ce  temps  la  (c'est  depuis  quatre  ans)  encore  peu 
usitez  entre  les  nostres  :  e"tant  le  Sonnet  d'ltalien  devenu  Fran9ois,  comme  ie  croy, 
par  Mellin  de  Sainct  Gelais 

In  1546,  then,  at  the  persuasion  of  Jacques  Peletier  du  Mans,  he 
began  writing  sonnets,  a  form  then  rarely  used  and  presumably  recently 
introduced  by  Melin  de  Saint-Gelais.  Ronsard  by  his  own  statement 
in  two  different  places  dates  his  work : 

le  vint-uniesme  jour 
Du  mois  d'avril,  que  je  vins  au  sejour 
De  la  prison  ou  les  Amours  me  pleurent3. 

L'an  mil  cinq  cens,  contant  quarante  six, 
Dans  ses  cheveux  une  dame  cruelle 
(Ne  scais  quel  plus,  las  !    ou  cruelle  ou  belle) 
Lia  mon  coeur...4. 

M.  Henri  Longnon6  argues  that  owing  to  the  new  style  the  date 
here  is  our  1545.  Granting  this  without  argument,  we  still  find  a  date 
posterior  by  three  years  to  Wyatt's  death.  This  is  important  as,  what- 
ever might  be  the  sporadic  use  of  the  sonnet,  the  work  of  the  Ple'iade  is 
strictly  the  analogy  of  the  poetry  of  the  court  of  Henry  VIII.  Wyatt's 
Anne  and  Surrey's  Geraldine  are  paralleled  by  Du  Bellay 's  Olive, 
Ronsard's  Cassandre,  Tyard's  Pasithee,  Baif's  Meline,  etc.  Thus  in  one 
sense  the  case  is  proved. 

But  in  order  to  lay  to  rest  for  ever  this  spectre  of  French  precedence, 
we  must  now  consider  that  group  called  loosely,  for  want  of  a  better 
name,  the  precursors  of  the  Pleiade,  a  group  which  may  be  centred  at 
Lyons.  There  about  15406  Margaret  of  Navarre  became  attracted  to 
the  doctrine  of  Platonic  love.  This  led  easily  to  Petrarchismo,  and 
suggests  Maurice  Sceve.  As  early  as  1533  Sceve  had  brought  himself 
into  prominence  by  his  discovery  of  the  pseudo-tomb  of  Laura  at 
Avignon7.  But  his  interest  in  Petrarch  bore  apparently  no  immediate 

1  Les  (Euvres  de  Pontus  de  Tyard,  par  Marty- Laveaux,  Paris,  1875. 

2  Les  (Euvres  de  Joachim  Du  Bellay,  par  Marty-Laveaux,  Paris,  1867,  vol.  i,  p.  72. 

3  Amours,  t.  1,  Son.  xiv,  Blanchemain,  Paris,  1867,  vol.  i,  p.  10. 

4  Ibid.,  Son.  cxxvn,  p.  71. 

5  Henri  Longnon,  Revue  des  questions  historiques,  Jan.  1902. 

6  Arthur  Tilley,  Literature  of  the  French  Renaissance,  Cambridge,  1904,  vol.  i,  p.  137. 

7  Albert  Baur,  Maurice  Sceve,  Paris  1906,  p.  26  et  al. 

16—2 


244  Discussions 

fruit,  since  in  1535  he  published  a  translation  of  a  Spanish  translation 
of  Boccaccio,  and  in  1538  he  entered  the  concours  of  the  '  blazon '  series 
inaugurated  by  Marot.  It  is  fair  to  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  arrival 
of  Margaret  quickened  his  Petrarchismo.  In  any  case  it  found  vent  in 
the  Delie,  1544.  But  this  differs  radically  from  the  sort  of  work  done 
by  both  Wyatt  and  the  Pleiade.  M.  Lauraonier,  in  his  commentary  on 
the  poems  of  Peletier,  thus  disposes  of  Sceve1 : 

Quant  a  Sceve,  quoi  qu'on  pense  de  son  obscurite  sybilline,  de  sou  symbolisme 
rebarbatif,  de  son  platonisuie  alambique,  qui  auraient  fait  1'admiration  des  cloves  de 
Dorat,  ce  n'est  pas  lui  que  du  Bellay,  Ronsard  et  de  Baif  ont  suivi ;  Tyard  seul  1'a 
quelquefois  imite  dans  ses  Erreurs  et  encore  seulement  pour  le  fond.  En  fait  de 
poesie  amoureuse,  les  sources  de  Sceve  sont  Chariteo,  Tebaldeo,  Serafino  ;  celles  de 
la  Pleiade  sont  Petrarque  et  les  petrarquistes  venitiens,  dont  le  chef  est  le  cardinal 
Bembo.  La  Pleiade  a  en  outre  suivi  tous  les  poetes  de  1'antiquite  greco-latine,  puis 
1'Ariosto  ;  on  ne  peut  en  dire  autant  de  Sceve.  Enfin  il  a  ecrit  sa  Delie  en  dizains, 
forme  ordinaire  de  1'epigrarnme  fran9aise  anterieure  et  la  plus  voisiue  des  strambotti, 
tandis  que  la  Pleiade  a  adopte\  pour  chanter  I'amour  et  la  beaute,  des  formes 
poetiques  toutes  differeutes.  Sceve  me  paralt  un  isole,  et  a  certains  egards  un 
attarde,  dans  sa  cite  lyonnaise  :  son  flambeau  fumeux  u'eclaire  pas  jusqu'k  Paris. 

To  me  the  decisive  proof  of  the  late  date  of  French  Petrarchismo  is 
the  fact,  stated  above,  that  the  poems  of  the  Ddlie  are  dizains,  not 
sonnets;  a  few  years  later  he  would  have  used  the  sonnet  form. 
Of  the  others  Louise  Labe  (b.  1525  ?)2  and  Magny3  (b.  1529  ?)  in  1540 
were  too  young  to  have  produced  much  work.  Magny  himself  is  rather 
a  precursor  of  the  later  manner  of  Desportes.  Then  Peletier  only 
remains.  Estienne  Pasquier4,  writing  in  1560,  thus  places  him : 

Jacques  Peletier  du  Mans,  qui  commenga  aussi  d'habiller  nostre  Poesie  &  la 
nouvelle  guise,  avecqu'un  tres  heureux  succes....Ce  fut  une  belle  guerre  que  Ton 
entreprit  contre  1'ignorance,  dont  j'attribue  1'avant-garde  k  Sceve,  Beze,  et  Peletier  ; 
ou  si  le  voulez  autrement,  ce  furent  les  avant-coureurs  des  autres  poetes. 

Bezius  is  ruled  out  because  he  wrote  in  Latin ;  Sceve,  in  the  passage 
just  quoted;  'reste  Peletier.'  M.  Seche  carries  the  ideas  contained  in 
the  celebrated  epistle  'A  un  Poete  qui  n'escrivoit  qu 'en  Latin5'  only 
back  as  far  as  15436.  If,  however,  Peletier  begins  French  Petrarchismo, 
and  does  not  begin  it  until  1543,  there  is  no  possibility  of  his  influencing 
the  Tudor  poets.  We  might  rest  the  case  here. 

But  the  real  question  at  issue  is  the  question  of  the  Petrarchismo 
of  Marot  and  Saint-Gelais.  The  extreme  position  is  given  by  M.  Fieri : 

II  (Marot)  crut  m§me  devoir  sacrifier  au  gout  du  jour  ;  lui  si  inde"pendant  de 
caracteVe,  si  petulant  de  grace  et  brillant  d'esprit,  il  se  mit  sur  le  tard  k  petrarquiser. 
A  1'occasion,  il  accueille  la  pointe  k  1'italienne,  le  jeu  de  mots  sur  le  nom  de  sa 

1  (Euvres  poetiques  de  Jacque  Peletier  du  Mans,  publiees  d'apres  1'edition  originate  de 
1547  par  Leon  Seche.     Avec  une  Notice  biographique,  un  Commentaire  et  des  Notes  par 
Paul  Laumonier,  Paris,  1904,  p.  147. 

2  (Euvres  de  Louise  Labe,  ed.  Blanchemain,  Paris,  1875. 

3  Olivier  de  Magny,  Etude  Biographique,  par  Jules  Favre,  Paris,  1885. 

4  Recherches  de  la  France,  1,  vi,  chap.  7.     Quoted  from  Laumonier. 

6  Peletier,  ibid.,  p.  110.  8  Peletier,  ibid.,  p.  xm. 


Discussions  245 

daine  (Diane)  ou  sur  Lyon,  les  metaphores  recherchees,  les  exag^rations  invraisem- 
blables,  les  antitheses  manierees,  les  fadeurs  banales  ;  il  nous  parlera  de  neige 
brulante  et  d'un  cceur  qui  quitte  sa  poi trine  pour  suivre  1'amie.  II  se  garde  seule- 
ment  du  platonisme  cher  a  Petrarque  ;  il  est  plus  materiel  dans  ses  amours  et  il 
n'aime  pas  a  soupirer  sans  espoir  ;  1'attente  eternelle  sans  les  re"alites,  comme  disait 
Tartufte,  n'est  pas  de  son  gout ;  on  aper9oit  vite  les  li mites  jusqu'ou  il  porte  1'adora- 
tion  platonique.  Enfin  Marot,  tout  en  conservant  sa  franchise,  ressentit  1'influence 
du  Canzoniere ;  on  peut  en  voir  line  preuve  frappante  dans  la  traduction  qu'il  fit 
d'une  chanson  et  de  six  sonnets  de  Petrarque  ;...mais  il  etait  impossible  de  ne  pas 
signaler  1'influence  de  Petrarque  sur  son  facile  genie,  quoiqu'elle  n'ait  agi  sur  lui  que 
tardivement  et  dans  la  seconde  moitie  de  sa  carriere1. 

I  question  whether  the  influence  of  Petrarch  would  have  received  so 
much  stress  if  the  poems  had  not  been  read  with  a  knowledge  of  future 
events.  While  exaggerated  metaphor,  pointed  antithesis  and  punning 
are  certainly  marks  of  Petrarchismo,  they  are  equally  characteristic  of 
the  rhetorical  school  of  which  Marot  is  the  legitimate  successor.  For 
example  the  particular  epigram  cited  of  the  burning  snow2,  dated  by 
Lenglet-Dufresnoy  15283,  is  the  one  chosen  by  M.  Bourciez4  as  an 
example  of  his  Anacreontic  grace.  In  general,  the  fond  of  Petrarchismo, 
sentimental  platonism,  is  completely  lacking.  The  total  impression  is 
very  different.  M.  Bourciez8,  to  interpret  his  manner  to  modern  readers, 
compares  him  to  Alfred  de  Musset,  and  M.  Faguet6  calls  him  '  une 
premiere  epreuve  de  la  Fontaine,  manquee,  si  Ton  veut,  par  comparaison 
avec  1'epreuve  definitive,  mais  deja  interessante  et  singulierement 
originate.'  In  fact  to  see  Petrarchismo  in  his  epigrams  seems  to  me  to 
deny  the  historical  position  of  the  Pleiade. 

That  Marot  knew  Petrarch  is  an  entirely  different  question.  The 
'  Visions  of  Petrarch,'  the  six  sonnets  translated  from  the  Canzoniere, 
incidental  references  and  an  occasional  line  show  that  he  was  familiar 
with  the  great  Tuscan.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  translations 
were  not  included  in  the  edition,  superintended  by  the  author  himself, 
in  1538,  but  appeared  only  in  the  edition  of  1545.  The  assumption 
therefore,  as  I  cannot  find  that  Lenglet-Dufresnoy  has  dated  them,  is 
that  they  were  composed  between  those  two  dates,  that  is  after  1540. 
Before  that  time  the  occasional  references  show  knowledge  of  Petrarch, 
but  no  influence.  Of  these  there  are  just  three.  The  relationship 
claimed  in 

Petrarque  a  bien  sa  maitresse  nominee, 
Sans  amoindrir  sa  bonne  renomme'e : 
Done,  si  je  suis  son  disciple  estim^e, 
Craindre  ne  fault  que  tu  en  sois  blasmee7, 

disappears  on  closer  examination.     His  conception  is  shown  by  the  fact 

1  Marius  Pie"ri,  p.  55,  'Petrarque  et  Ronsard,  Marseilles,  1896. 

2  Epigramme  xxiv,  (Euvres  de  Clement  Marot,  ed.  Pierre  Jannet,  Paris,  n.d. 

3  Given  in  Jannet's  edition,  vol.  4,  p.  199. 

4  Histoire  de  la  Langue  et  de  la  Literature  fraru-aise,  par  L.  Petit  de  Julleville,  t.  3, 
Chap.  3,  p.  110  by  M.  Bourciez. 

6  M.  Bourciez,  ibid.,  p.rlL9. 

6  Seizieme  Siecle,  par  Enaile  Faguet,  Paris,  1898,  p.  41. 

7  Epigramme  LXI  (1527),  Jannet,  t.  3,  p.  27. 


246  Discussions 

that  in  the  two  other  places  he  brackets  him  with  authors  antithetic  in 
character. 

Pour  suivre  ainsi  Jean  de  Meun  ou  Petrarque1 — 

Ovidius,  maistre  Alain  Chartier2, 
Petrarque,  aussi  le  Roman  de  la  Rose, 
Sont  les  messelz,  breviare  et  psaultier 

Even  the  Petrarchan  line  used  as  refrain, 

Desbender  1'arc,  ne  guerist  point  la  playe3, 

since  it  was  the  motto  of  King  Rene,  and  he  may  have  seen  it  at 
Nantes,  shows  no  necessary  knowledge  of  the  original.  This  position  is 
also  substantiated  by  the  two  poems  written  to  celebrate  the  discovery 
of  the  tomb  of  Laura.  The  epitaph,  attributed  also  to  the  King, 

En  petit  lieu  comprins  vous  pouvez  voir4..., 
and  the  occasional  poem, 

O  Laure,  Laure,  il  t'a  este  besoing5..., 

are  frankly  what  they  pretend  to  be,  epigrams.  On  the  other  hand, 
while  the  manner  is  undoubtedly  absent,  there  is  virtual  agreement 
that  Marot  introduced  the  sonnet  form.  '  Pour  le  may  plante  par  les 
imprimeurs  de  Lyon6'  is  the  first  dated  French  sonnet.  'A.  M.  L.  D. 
D.  F.  luy  estant  en  Italic7,'  written  probably  in  1536,  shows  some  of 
the  Petrarchan  manner.  The  Sonnet  de  I'auteur8  is  not  even  a  regular 
sonnet.  But  in  general,  however  regular  the  form,  the  matter  is 
epigrammatic.  This  seems  to  sustain  M.  Jabinski9  that  the  sonnet 
was  first  known  in  France  as  a  form  of  epigram.  Then  here  there  can 
be  no  question  of  the  priority  of  the  English  poets. 

Of  the  French  poets  Melin  de  Saint-Gelais  remains  to  be  discussed, 
Marot's  contemporary,  rival  and  disciple,  who,  born  eight  years  before 
him,  yet  survived  him  fourteen  years.  And  it  is  Saint-Gelais  that,  on 
the  authority  of  the  passage  already  quoted  from  the  preface  to  the 
Olive  is  said  to  have  introduced  the  sonnet  form  into  France.  Here, 
however,  the  ground  becomes  very  slippery  owing  to  an  almost  entire 
absence  of  definite  dates.  According  to  the  testimony  of  Du  Bellay 
probably,  and  certainly  of  Magny,  he  was  reluctant  to  print  his  work10. 
His  first  volume,  published  as  late  as  1547,  exists  in  a  single  copy — a 
condition  which  suggests  that  perhaps  the  edition  was  suppressed11. 
In  this  volume  the  only  sonnet,  '  Voyant  ces  monts  de  veue  ainsi 
lointaine,'  is  the  one  which  has  excited  this  controversy.  The  .only 
passage  taken  from  the  Italian  noted  by  Blanchemain  is  a  rendition  in 
terza  rima  of  Bembo's,  '  Amor  e,  donne  care,  un  vano  e  fello12.'  If  we 

I  Jannet,  t.  2,  p.  59.  2  Temple  de  Cupidon,  ibid.,  t.  1,  p.  18. 
3  Ibid,  t.  2,  p.  95.  *  Ibid.,  t.  3,  p.  152. 

5  Ibid.,  t.  3,  p.  39.  6  Ibid.,  t.  3,  p.  59. 

7  Ibid.,  t.  3,  p.  76.  8  Ibid.,  t.  1,  p.  116. 

9  Reviewed  by  M.  Henri  Potez,  Revue  d'histoire  litteraire  de  la  France,  1904,  p.  341. 

10  CEuvres  de  Melin  de  Sainct-Gelays,  par  Prosper  Blanchemain,  Paris,  1873,  t.  1,  p.  11. 

II  Ibid.,  t.  1,  p.  14  note;  also  t.  1,  p.  33.  12  Ibid.,  t.  1,  p.  69. 


Discussions  247 

could  assume  that  this  volume  contained  all  his  work  up  to  that 
time,  the  question  would  be  answered.  Unfortunately  this  assumption 
is  contrary  to  the  fact.  In  the  second  (1574)  edition,  sonnet  VIII  is 
dated  15441 ;  the  sonnet  to  Clement  Marot  (if  it  be  addressed  to 
Clement  Marot)  addresses  him  as  still  alive2:  and  sonnet  VI,  'mis  au 
Petrarque  de  feu  Monsieur  le  Due  d'Orleans3,'  is  presumably  anterior  to 
that  date.  Thus  for  some  reason  only  a  part  of  his  work,  already 
written,  was  published  in  1547. 

Then  the  question  arises,  how  long  before  that  date  did  his  poems 
circulate  in  manuscript  ?  M.  Fieri  answers  : 

Vers  1547,  Melin  de  Saint-Gelais  faisait  paraltre  un  recueil  de  poesies  renfer- 
mant  quelques  sonnets  qu'il  avait  composes  a  1'imitation  des  Italiens  et  qui,  depuis 
plus  de  dix  ans,  circulaient  de  main  en  main  4. 

This  statement,  while  apparently  authoritative,  becomes  doubtful  on 
examination.  In  the  first  place  there  are  not  '  quelques  sonnets.'  There 
is  only  one.  In  the  second  place,  the  '  plus  de  dix  ans '  was  apparently 
suggested  by  the  date  1536  affixed  to  that  sonnet  by  Blanchemain  from 
internal  evidence.  As  it  has  been  proved  to  be  a  translation,  that  date 
is  no  longer  supported,  even  by  guesswork.  This  point  is  also  discussed 
by  M.  Vaganay  in  his  Le  Sonnet  au  XVIe  Siecle6 : 

En  France,  les  ballades  de  Villon  ne  laisserent  point  prevoir  quelles  seraient  les 
formes  preferees  de  1'age  suivant  et  Marot  lui-meme,  bien  qu'un  sonnet  se  refere  k 
un  evenement  de  1529,  ne  se  doute  nullement  qu'il  fut  un  precurseur  :  ce  dernier 
terme  n'est  point  tout  &  fait  exact,  et  M.  A.  Darmesteter  a  montre  que  Mellin  de 
Saint-Gelais  avait  visite  1'Italie  avant  Marot  et  que  ses  sonnets  '  presentent  dans  le 
dernier  tercet  la  rime  florentine  (ede)  propre  aux  sonnets  italiens,'  lorsque  '  Marot 
dispose  le  dernier  tercet  en  :dee,  groupemeut  qui  a  ete  gene"ralernent  adopte  par 
nos  poetes.' 

I  quote  this  in  full  as,  since  M.  Vaganay  gives  no  reference,  I  have 
been  unable  to  locate  the  reference  in  the  various  publications  of 
M.  Arsene  Darmesteter,  or  in  the  various  critical  reviews.  I  regret  this 
all  the  more  since  my  own  investigations  lead  to  a  diametrically  opposite 
conclusion.  Of  the  nineteen  sonnets  given  in  the  edition  of  Blanchemain, 
the  same  edition  to  which  M.  Darmesteter  refers  in  his  Seizieme  Siecle,  not 
one  has  the  last  tercet  rhyming  (ede).  The  only  exception  is  the  irregular 
sonnet,  t.  1,  p.  284,  whose  entire  rhyming  scheme  is  ababbccddeefef. 
To  make  the  matter  more  astounding,  in  '  Pour  le  may,  A.  M.  L.  D.  D.  F.,' 
and  the  six  sonnets  from  Petrarch,  Marot  never  uses  the  form  dee. 
Nor  is  there  any  such  general  agreement  among  the  Florentines  as 
seems  to  be  intimated.  The  whole  passage  is  inexplicable !  Thus  I 
am  thrown  back  upon  my  own  resources. 

In  the  case  of  Saint-Gelais,  as  in  the  case  of  Marot,  there  is  a  satiric 
attitude  of  mind  antagonistic  to  the  sentimentality  of  Petrarchismo,  the 
French  love  of  esprit.  He  is  considered,  rightly  I  think,  to  uphold  the 

1  Blanchemain,  t.  1,  p.  290.  2  Ibid.,  t.  2,  p.  262. 

3  Ibid.,  t.  1,  p.  287.  4  Fieri,  ibid.,  p.  52. 

5  Le  Sonnet  en  Italie  et  en  France  au  XVIe  Siecle,  par  Hugues  Vaganay,  Lyon,  1902. 
Fascicule  11  (1903),  p.  vi. 


248  Discussions 

old  tradition.  Otherwise  I  cannot  see  the  reason  for  the  celebrated 
quarrel  between  him  and  Ronsard,  between  the  old  school  and  the  new. 
If  the  work  of  the  Pleiade,  instead  of  being  different  in  kind,  was 
merely  an  extension  of  the  Petrarchismo  found  in  Saint-Gelais,  he 
certainly  would  not  have  provoked  that  scene  at  Court,  nor  would  there 
have  been  on  their  part  any  attack  upon  his  work.  Rather  at  a  time 
when  the  new  manner  was  on  trial,  they  would  have  leaned  on  his 
support.  After  the  reconciliation,  however,  it  would  be  natural  for  the 
older  poet,  particularly  a  man  so  facile  in  genius  as  Saint-Gelais,  to  imitate 
the  popular  fashion.  A  priori  the  Petrarchismo  to  be  found  in  the  later 
editions  of  Saint-Gelais  may  be  inferred  to  have  been  written  after  the 
success  of  the  Pleiade  and  in  imitation  of  it.  If  this  be  true,  then 
Wyatt's  priority  is  settled. 

In  fact,  as  I  see  it,  it  is  precisely  because  of  the  popularity  of  the 
type  represented  by  the  poems  of  Marot  and  Saint-Gelais,  that  the 
coming  of  Petrarchismo  was  retarded  in  France.  In  England,  on  the 
contrary,  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  the  elaborate  court  life 
developed  conditions  demanding  courtly  poetry  simultaneously  with  the 
disappearance  of  the  English  models,  owing  to  the  neglect  in  pronun- 
ciation of  the  final  e,  suitable  for  those  occasions.  Skelton  was  not 
sufficiently  refined,  Heywood  was  dull  and  the  Chaucerian  imitators 
naturally  unable  to  follow  their  master.  Even  Chaucer  was  felt  to  be 
antiquated. 

At  those  days  moch  commended, 
And  now  men  wold  haue  amended 
His  Englysh,  whereat  they  barke,- 
And  mar  all  they  warke1. 

Consequently  when  Wyatt,  finding  the  conventional  solution  among 
the  Italian  courts,  brought  the  sonnet  back  to  England,  it  spread  with 
almost  no  resistance.  In  France,  on  the  contrary,  the  old  manner  was 
represented  by  so  powerful  a  body  as  Clement  Marot  and  his  friends. 
To  introduce  it  in  spite  of  his  influence  caused  a  literary  revolution. 
Hence  the  vast  importance  of  the  Defense.  '  In  no  other  country  of 
Europe  is  the  transition  from  the  Middle  Ages  to  the  Renaissance  so 
clearly  marked  as  it  is  in  France  by  this  single  book2.'  It  won  because 
little  by  little,  as  we  have  seen,  the  outworks  had  been  gained.  The 
change  was  in  the  air ;  even  Marot  had  tampered  with  Petrarch.  Con- 
sequently what  is  more  probable  than  that,  when  Wyatt  was  in  France 
on  his  diplomatic  expeditions,  he  met  Saint-Gelais  at  the  Court  and 
showed  him  his  work  ?  As  an  indication  of  this,  it  is  suggestive  that 
five  of  the  nineteen  regular  sonnets  written  by  Saint-Gelais  terminate 
in  a  couplet,  two  of  the  five  certainly  having  been  written  before  1547. 
Of  the  two  hundred  and  twenty-two  sonnets  in  the  first  book  of  the 
Amours  of  Ronsard,  who  found  his  inspiration  truly  in  Italy,  not  one 

1  Dyce's  edition  of  Skelton  ;  Phyllyp  Sparowe,  lines  796-9. 

2  History  of  Literary  Criticism  in  the  Renaissance,  by  J.  E.  Spingarn,  New  York,  1899, 
p.  172. 


Discussions  249 

terminates  in  a  couplet.  M.  Vianey1,  noticing  this,  credits  it  to  the 
example  of  Peletier.  He  does  use  the  couplet,  but  only  twice.  But 
the  couplet  ending  is  the  normal  ending  in  Wyatt.  It  is  a  fair  suppo- 
sition, then,  that  the  two  court  poets  exchanged  notes,  that  Saint- 
Gelais  remarked  the  English  method,  and  that  he  went  even  so  far 
as  to  translate  a  whole  sonnet.  Although  this  is  not  susceptible 
of  positive  proof,  I  respectfully  argue  that  it  is  not  '  a  priori  highly 
improbable.' 

JOHN  M.  BERDAN. 
NEW  HAVEN,  CONN.,  U.S.A. 


I  have  read  Mr  Berdan's  discussion  of  '  Wyatt  and  the  French 
Sonneteers,'  and  must  confess  that  I  remain  irretrievably  impenitent. 
His  assumption,  which  in  the  original  (Modern  Language  Notes, 
February  1908)  comes  very  near  being  a  conviction,  appears  to  me 
to  be  quite  untenable.  No  one  would  have  been  more  pleased  than 
myself  if  Mr  Berdan  had  succeeded  in  proving  his  startling  proposition, 
and  thus  establishing  a  most  interesting  phenomenon  in  the  literary 
relations  between  France  and  England  in  the  sixteenth  century. 

The  real  point  at  issue,  to  which  I  will  confine  myself  for  the  present, 
is  that  I  deny  Mr  Berdan's  thesis  that  Melin  de  Saint-Gelais  translated 
the  sonnet  '  Voyant  ces  monts  de  veue  ainsi  lointaine '  from  Wyatt's 
'Like  unto  these  unmeasurable  mountains,'  and  that  I  do  not  even  admit 
that  there  is  any  probability  that  the  French  poet's  model  was  Wyatt. 
It  is  not  only  the  weakness  of  Mr  Berdan's  arguments  and  the  errors 
into  which  he  lapses — in  spite  of  his  evident  erudition — that  invalidate 
his  case,  but  the  strength  of  the  facts,  and  the  deductions  from  those 
facts,  on  the  other  side.  Rectifying  an  error  into  which  Emil  Koeppel 
(Anglia,  xin,  77-8)  had  fallen  through  not  being  aware  of  the  existence 
of  the  original  Italian  source,  I  have  already  stated  my  conviction — a 
conviction  which  I  believe  is  shared  by  all  recent  investigators — that 
both  the  sonnet  of  Saint-Gelais  and  that  of  Wyatt  are  modelled  on  the 
sonnet  of  Sannazaro  '  Simile  a  questi  smisurati  monti '  which  appeared 
in  print  for  the  first  time  in  1531  apparently  (Modern  Language  Review, 
April  1908).  Wyatt's  sonnet  is  an  almost  verbatim  translation  of  that 
of  his  Italian  predecessor ;  the  version  of  Saint-Gelais  is  a  freer  rendering 
though  it  cannot  be  said  to  depart  to  any  considerable  extent  from  the 
Italian  prototype.  Mr  Berdan  admits  that  Wyatt's  reproduction  is  a 
translation  from  Sannazaro,  and  that  he  probably  came  across  the 
Italian  original  during  his  stay  at  Rome  in  1527.  But  Saint-Gelais 
also  went  to  Italy,  at  a  somewhat  earlier  date,  to  complete  his  studies, 
first  to  Padua,  and  in  1509  to  Bologna,  where  he  appears  to  have 
remained  till  after  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Francis  I.  Moreover 
the  character  of  much  of  his  work  affords  ample  testimony  that  he  too 

1  M.  J.  Vianey,  Revue  cThistoire  litteraire  de  la  France,  1904,  p.  307. 


250  Discussions 

had  not  been  able  to  resist  the  charms  and  attraction  of  Italian  litera- 
ture. These  considerations,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  dominating 
facts  that  English  poetry  was  absolutely  unknown  in  France  at  the 
time,  and  that  Italy  was  the  common  storehouse  for  French,  English 
and  Spanish  poets  (especially  sonneteers)  in  the  sixteenth  century,  ought 
to  be  sufficient  to  dispose  of  Mr  Berdan's  theory.  However,  I  am 
anxious  to  meet  him  on  his  chosen  ground,  and  hope  to  be  able  to  show 
in  detail  that  his  arguments  rest  on  an  unsound  basis. 

Mr  Berdan  states  that  Saint-Gelais  is  '  considered  to  uphold  the  old 
tradition.'  This  assertion  will  not  withstand  scrutiny,  and  in  his  earlier 
manner  at  all  events  he  is  almost  wholly  dominated  by  Italian  influence. 
Both  Wyatt  and  Saint-Gelais  are  Italianates,  but  whereas  Wyatt  fre- 
quently follows  the  Petrarchists,  preferably  the  great  master  himself, 
Saint-Gelais  was  above  all,  both  in  form  and  substance,  a  disciple  of  the 
Quattrocento1 ;  a  large  number  of  his  huitains  and  dizains  are  evidently 
inspired  by  the  strambotti  of  Serafino,  and  one  of  them  is  actually  a 
translation  of  a  strambotto  of  the  poet  of  Aquila.  Yet  he  did  not 
altogether  eschew  Petrarchism  proper.  Wyatt  also,  in  spite  of  his 
translations  from  Petrarch,  likewise  felt  the  influence  of  the  Quattro- 
cento to  a  marked  degree,  though  it  cannot  be  denied  that  he  was  a 
much  more  thorough-going  Petrarchist  than  Saint-Gelais.  The  numerous 
translations  and  adaptations  from  Serafino  in  Wyatt's  work  prove  this. 
In  choosing  the  sonnet  in  question  from  among  those  of  Sannazaro 
rather  than  any  other  both  Wyatt  and  Saint-Gelais  remained  true  to 
one  side  at  least  of  their  natural  bent.  Its  exaggerated  metaphors  and 
strained  hyperboles  single  it  out  from  the  rest  of  Sannazaro's  sonnets. 
Serafino,  Tebaldeo,  or  Pamfilo  Sasso,  that  apt  pupil  of  theirs,  might 
have  written  it-.  The  central  idea  is  identically  the  same  as  in  the 
following  strambotto  of  Serafino  : 

Quanto  e  piu  alto  un  monte  ha  piu  le  neve, 

II  plan  dal  sol  piu  longe  ha  piu  calore. 
Di  questo  ogn'  un  maravigliar  se  deve, 

Ma  tu  non  gia,  che  in  me  tel  mostra  amore  : 
Son  da  te  longe,  il  cor  foco  riceve  : 

Te  son  d'  apresso,  a  1'  hor  tremando  more. 
Cosi  amor  mostra  nel  mio  cor  doglioso 

Quel  che  in  natura  par  miraculoso3. 

Though  I  do  not  wish  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  what  may  only 
be  a  coincidence,  it  almost  looks  as  if  Sannazaro  who  was  friendly  with 
Cariteo,  the  precursor  of  the  group,  and  with  Tebaldeo,  had  one  day 
wished  to  show  his  friends  that  he  could,  if  he  so  desired,  hold  his  own 

1  J.  Viauey  proves  this  convincingly  in  his  article  on  ^Influence  italienne  chez  les 
precurseurs  de  la-  Pleiade  (Bulletin  itnlieti,  avril — juiu  1903). 

2  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that,  as  early  as  1816,  Dr  Nott  (than  whom 
there  was  no  better  judge  of  Italian  literature  in  his  time)  was  struck  by  the  resemblance 
Wyatt's  translation  bore  to  the  manner  of  the  Quattrocento.     Not  aware  of  the  Italian 
original,  he  speaks  of  Wyatt's  performance  as  '  probably  borrowed  from   some   Italian 
writer,  Tibaldeo  or  Accolti '  (Works  of  Sir  Thomas  Wyatt,  London,   1816,  p.  543). 

3  Quoted  according  to  the  Venice  edition  of  1548,  p.  142. 


Discussions  251 

with  them  on  their  own  ground.  There  were  special  reasons  why  this 
particular  sonnet  of  Sannazaro  should  have  appealed  to  Saint-Gelais  and 
to  Wyatt,  both  disciples  of  Serafino  and  his  associates.  Thus  the  ques- 
tion becomes  not  so  much  one  of  Petrarchism  as  of  Quattrocentism,  if  I 
may  be  allowed  that  ugly  word,  and  Mr  Berdan's  main  argument  and  the 
shaky  edifice  constructed  upon  it  fall  to  the  ground.  His  second  argument 
which  he  does  well,  I  think,  to  keep  in  the  background  is  still  more  hope- 
less. Mr  Berdan  thinks  that  another  way  of  establishing  the  probability 
of  his  proposition  would  be  to  cite  'the  few  other  borrowings  in  the 
French  from  the  English — as  is  notably  the  case  of  Chaucer — by  showing 
that  the  English  language  was  understood  at  the  Court  of  France — a 
condition  which  is  historically  probable.'  To  hark  back  to  Chaucer  is 
hardly  relevant.  His  influence  on  French  poetry  of  any  time  is 
highly  problematical  and  in  any  case  infinitesimal.  As  for  the  borrowings 
of  the  French  from  the  English  in  the  sixteenth  century  I  confess  I  am 
not  acquainted  with  them.  All  the  evidence  points  the  other  way.  In 
fact  English  vernacular  literature  in  the  sixteenth  century  might  not 
have  existed  as  far  as  the  French  poets  were  concerned.  This  affirma- 
tion I  know  is  a  truism,  but  perhaps  I  may  be  allowed  to  instance  a  few 
striking  examples  that  may  not  be  present  in  everybody's  mind.  In 
spite  of  a  three  years'  stay  in  Scotland  and  England  there  is  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  the  influence  of  English  literature  in  the  works  of 
Ronsard.  The  visit  of  Du  Bartas  to  the  English  and  Scottish  courts 
and  his  very  cordial  reception  by  the  king  and  poet  James  VI  did  not 
bear  any  more  fruit.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Jacques  Grevin's  visit, 
and  when  in  later  years  Brantdme,  a  keen  observer,  if  ever  there  was 
one,  came  to  record  the  reminiscences  of  his  chequered  career,  the  one 
event  of  his  stay  in  England  which  he  recalls  with  the  greatest  pleasure 
and  vividness  was  the  unexpected  encounter  in  the  Tower  of  the  de- 
scendants of  certain  dogs,  six  in  number,  four  of  them  being  bitches, 
which  his  father,  the  Seigneur  de  Bourdeille,  had  once  presented  to 
Henry  VIII.  On  English  poets  he  is  mute.  He  remembered  only  the 
dogs.  This  extraordinary  neglect  of  English  literature  was  general  and 
lasting ;  from  the  day  that  old  Deschamps  wrote  his  now  famous  com- 
pliment to  Geoffrey  Chaucer  till  Du  Bartas  included  Sir  Philip  Sidney 
in  his  enumeration  of  the  chief  supporters  of  the  principal  modern 
languages  (n  Jour  de  la  II  Sepmaine,  1.  605)  there  does  not  appear  to 
be  any  mention  of  the  name  of  any  English  poet  in  the  annals  of  French 
literature.  It  were  easy  to  go  on  accumulating  proofs  of  the  same  kind, 
if  one  were  not  anxious  to  avoid  repeating  what  has  been  much  better 
said  by  others1.  Not  only  the  literature  but  also  the  language  of 
England  was  looked  upon  as  crude  and  in  many  respects  barbarous.  A 
few  people  at  court  may  have  had  a  smattering  of  English,  but  there  is 
no  evidence  to  show  that  any  Frenchmen,  excepting  a  few  merchants 
who  had  direct  and  frequent  business  relations  with  England,  had  any 

1  Compare  in  particular  M.  Jusserand's  article  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  April  1898, 
on  French  Ignorance  of  English  Literature  in  Tudor  Times — -an  eloquent  title  in  itself. 


252  Discussions 

knowledge  of  the  language.  It  was  not  taught.  What  likelihood  then 
is  there  that  Saint-Gelais  who  had  never  set  foot  on  English  soil  was 
able  to  read  Wyatt  ?  How  and  where  would  he  have  come  by  any 
knowledge  of  English  ?  Whatever  way  Mr  Berdan's  theory  is  looked  at, 
it  appears  to  me  that  the  epithet  I  applied  to  it  and  of  which  he  com- 
plains errs  on  the  side  of  mildness.  It  would  be  truer  to  facts  to  say 
that  his  theory  is  impossible.  Against  this  overwhelming  array  of  hostile 
forces  Mr  Berdan's  only  hope  was  to  advance  positive  proofs  to  the 
contrary.  If  he  had  been  able  to  demonstrate,  for  example,  that  the 
phraseology  and  turns  of  Wyatt's  sonnet  were  closely  reproduced  by 
Saint-Gelais.  he  would  have  gone  a  long  way  to  prove  his  case.  This  he 
cannot  do.  Even  then  it  would  have  been  essential  to  prove  that  Wyatt's 
sonnet  was  written  before  that  of  Saint-Gelais.  This  also  he  cannot  do. 
Instead  he  accumulates  a  farrago  of  facts  which  have  little  or  nothing 
to  do  with  the  case,  interspersed  with  erroneous  assertions  of  his  own,  a 
few  of  which  I  will  now  proceed  to  correct. 

In  reference  to  the  contents  of  Mr  Berdan's  second  paragraph  I  have 
explicitly  pointed  out  the  danger  of  ignoring  the  Italian  original  in 
considering  the  source  of  Elizabethan  sonnets.  That  is  the  whole  point 
of  my  emphasising  the  indebtedness  of  Saint-Gelais  to  Sannazaro  in  my 
article  on  The  Elizabethan  Sonneteers  and  the  French  Poets  (Modern 
Language  Review,  April  1908).  Mr  Berdan  is  also  unaware  apparently 
that  I  have  already  drawn  attention  to  the  Italian  source  of  Phillis 
xxvin,  and  devoted  another  article  in  the  same  periodical  (January 
1907)  to  Lodge's  dependence  on  the  Italians.  To  say  (in  his  fourth 
paragraph)  that  the  Cinquecento  was  at  its  height  when  Wyatt  visited 
Italy  in  1527  is-  scarcely  accurate.  The  Rime  of  Sannazaro  and  of 
Bembo,  the  two  principal  poets  who  reacted  against  the  Quattrocento, 
were  not  published  till  1530,  though  they  were  undoubtedly  in  circula- 
tion before  that  date.  The  Quattrocento  was  still  vigorous  at  that 
date,  as  is  shown  by  the  numerous  editions  of  Serafino  which  succeeded 
each  other  rapidly  till  15501.  Further  on  Mr  Berdan,  brushing  aside 
unceremoniously  the  pioneer  work  of  the  precursors  of  the  Pleiade, 
makes  the  rash  assertion  that  '  whatever  might  be  the  sporadic  use  of 
the  sonnet,  the  work  of  the  Pleiade  is  strictly  the  analogy  of  the  poetry 
of  the  court  of  Henry  VIII.  Wyatt's  Anne  and  Surrey's  Geraldine  are 
paralleled  by  Du  Bellay's  Olive,  Ronsard's  Cassandre,  Tyard's  Pasithee, 
Baif's  M^line,  etc.'  Not  to  mention  the  lack  of  all  sense  of  proportion, 
I  should  have  said  that  the  parallel  is  to  be  found  roughly  in  the 
extraordinary  outburst  of  sonneteering  led  by  Thomas  Watson,  Sidney 
and  Spenser.  Moreover  the  custom  of  grouping  sonnets  under  the 
fanciful  name  of  some  mistress  was  unknown  to  the  poets  of  Tottel's 
Miscellany,  so  that  here  again  Mr  Berdan  is  stretching  a  point.  Over- 
looking numerous  errors  of  fact  or  judgment,  more  particularly  in  the 
estimation  of  the  part  played  by  those  poets  who  pointed  the  way  to  the 

1  See  the  introduction  to  Vol.  i  (the  only  one  to  appear  so  far)  of  Menghini's  Le  Rime 
di  Serafino  de"  Ciminelli  dalU  Aquila,  Bologna,  1894. 


Discussions  253 

Pleiade,  we  come  to  this  equally  audacious  declaration :  '  while  the 
mariner  is  undoubtedly  absent,  there  is  virtual  agreement  that  Marot 
introduced  the  sonnet  form.'  It  is  impossible  to  prove  categorically 
that  the  distinction  of  importing  the  sonnet  belongs  to  Saint-Gelais  and 
not  to  Marot,  but  considering  that  Du  Bellay  expresses  it  as  his  opinion 
that  he  did  so,  and  considering  also  Saint-Gelais'  residence  in  Italy  and 
fondness  for  Italian  models  the  benefit  "of  the  doubt  remains  with  Saint- 
Gelais.  There  is  nothing  to  contradict  Du  Bellay 's  statement,  and 
recent  criticism  is  inclined  to  confirm  it1.  Lastly  there  is  one  more 
statement  that  cannot  be  allowed  to  pass  unchallenged.  Speaking  of 
the  new  start  made  by  Wyatt  in  the  art  which  he  practised,  Mr  Berdan, 
after  characterising  the  poetry  and  conditions  that  immediately  pre- 
ceded, adds :  '  consequently  when  Wyatt,  finding  the  conventional 
solution  among  the  Italian  courts,  brought  the  sonnet  back  to  England, 
it  spread  with  almost  no  resistance.'  Now  this  is  just  what  did  not 
happen.  '  The  result  in  fact '  of  Tottel's  Miscellany,  says  Professor 
Saintsbury2,  '  may  have  been  certain  but  it  was  not  immediate,  being 
delayed  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century ;  and  the  next  remarkable 
piece  of  work  done  in  English  poetry  after  the  Miscellany  was  in  the  old 
forms,  and  showed  little,  if  any,  of  the  influence  of  the  new  poetical 
learning.'  It  is  true  that  Mr  Berdan  is  not  very  explicit  and  that  he 
may  be  referring  to  the  contents  of  the  Miscellany,  in  which  case  Surrey 
alone  enters  into  consideration.  This  generous  interpretation  would  not 
lend  much  greater  appropriateness  to  Mr  Berdan's  pronouncement. 

L.  E.  KASTNER. 

ABERYSTWYTH. 


1  Compare  for  example  A.  Tilley,  The  Literature  of  the  French  Renaissance,  Vol.  i,  p.  147. 

2  A  History  of  Elizabethan  Literature,  London,  1903,  p.  11. 


REVIEWS. 

La  Quaestio  de  Aqua  et  Terra  di  Dante  Alighieri.  Bibliografia. 
Dissertazione  critica  sull'  autenticita.  Testo  e  commento.  Lessi- 
grafia.  Facsimili.  Da  VINCENZO  BIAGI.  Modena :  G.  T.  Vincenzi 
e  Nipoti.  1908.  8vo.  195  pp. 

The  general  position  of  the  controversy  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the 
Quaestio  de  Aqua  et  Terra  is  presumably  fairly  well  known  to  Dante 
students,  but  it  may  be  convenient  to  restate  it  briefly.  The  Quaestio 
was  printed  in  1508,  before  the  Vita  Nuova,  or  any  other  of  Dante's 
minor  works  except  the  Convivio.  The  editor  was  a  certain  Padre 
Moncetti,  who  was  active  in  various  ways  at  that  period,  but  of  whom 
we  know  nothing  that  inspires  us  with  any  confidence.  No  one  had 
ever  heard  of  the  treatise,  for  it  is  mentioned  by  none  of  Dante's 
contemporaries  or  biographers,  and  no  manuscript  of  it  is  known  to 
exist.  The  question  of  its  authenticity,  therefore,  must  be  decided 
entirely  on  internal  evidence.  In  uncritical  ages  the  treatise  was 
accepted  without  question.  In  the  hyper-sceptical  age,  of  which 
Scartazzini  was  the  best  known  apostle,  its  authenticity  was  generally 
rejected,  though  on  patently  inadequate  grounds.  But  in  1899  the  tide 
was  turned  by  Dr  Moore's  essay  in  his  second  series  of  Studies,  in  which 
a  strong,  if  not  a  conclusive,  case  was  made  out  for  Dante's  authorship. 
Since  then  there  has  been  an  active  controversy  on  the  subject,  and  it 
has  become  very  clear  that  Moncetti  himself  was  utterly  incapable  of 
forging  the  treatise,  as  he  was  at  one  time  supposed  to  have  done ;  that 
it  must  really  have  been  printed  or  edited,  as  it  professed  to  be,  from 
a  manuscript,  because  the  contractions  were  often  erroneously  expanded; 
that  the  question  it  deals  with  (whether  any  portions  of  the  ocean  are 
higher  than  portions  of  the  land)  was  under  lively  discussion  during  the 
whole  period,  from  the  early  fourteenth  to  the  early  sixteenth  century, 
over  which  the  controversy  as  to  its  authorship  ranges ;  and  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  arguments  on  either  side  might  easily  have  been 
used  at  any  time  during  that  period.  To  this  I  think  we  may  fairly  add 
(though  the  statements  might  be  challenged)  that  every  attempt  to 
identify  a  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century  forger  has  absolutely  failed ; 
that  the  whole  style  of  treatment  is  worthy  of  Dante ;  and  that  the 
coincidences  of  expression  and  usage  which  it  presents  with  his  ac- 
knowledged works  are  so  striking  as  to  raise  a  strong  presumption  of 


Reviews  255 

authenticity,  unless  conclusive  objections  can  be  urged.  It  will  be  seen, 
however,  that  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  authenticity  is  purely 
internal,  and  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  absolutely  conclusive. 
The  argumentum  e  silentio  is  strong  against  the  authenticity,  but  that 
argument  is  proverbially  inconclusive.  If  therefore  the  authenticity  is 
to  be  effectively  impugned,  it  must  be  by  demonstrating  that  the 
treatise  shews  acquaintance  with  facts  or  arguments  that  were  in- 
accessible to  Dante, — in  itself  a  difficult  task,  for  it  involves  proving 
a  negative. 

I  may  perhaps  best  shew  the  great  value  of  the  contributions  to  the 
controversy  made  by  Dr  Vincenzo  Biagi  in  the  handsome  volume  under 
review,  by  enumerating  the  special  points  which  appeared  to  me  to 
remain  for  future  discussion  when  I  translated  and  annotated  the 
treatise  in  1904.  I  pointed  out  that,  in  arguing  against  the  theory 
that  the  natural  centre  of  water  is  different  from  that  of  earth,  Dante 
says  that,  if  it  were  so,  the  line  along  which  a  clod  of  earth  and  a  drop 
of  water  fall  would  be  different,  which  he  regards  as  a  reductio  ad 
absurdum,  §  12 ;  and,  I  added,  '  It  is  odd  that  the  believers  in  the  late 
date  of  the  treatise  have  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  fastened  upon  this 
passage  as  containing  ideas  beyond  the  scope  of  Dante's  science.'  I 
was  riot  then  aware  that  in  the  two  preceding  years,  1902  and  1903, 
Dr  Boffito  had  contributed  two  '  Memorie '  to  the  Royal  Academy  of 
Science  of  Turin,  in  which,  with  immense  though  defective  erudition, 
he  had  attempted  to  shew  that  the  arguments  in  the  treatise  pro  and 
contra  belonged  to  the  fifteenth  rather  than  the  fourteenth  century.  The 
specific  point  to  which  I  called  attention  was  treated  by  him  at  great 
length ;  and  he  shewed  that  Paul,  Bishop  of  Burgos,  who  supplemented 
Nicholas  de  Lyra's  Postilla  in  the  fifteenth  century,  had  argued  that 
when  God  separated  the  land  from  the  water  he  did  so  by  making 
the  centre  of  the  sphere  of  water  eccentric  with  respect  to  that 
of  earth,  in  which  case,  of  course,  some  portions  of  water  might  be 
higher  as  measured  from  the  centre  of  the  earth  than  some  portions  of 
the  land.  And  in  the  same  century  Matthew  Dornick  (who  had  been 
the  Franciscan  minister  of  the  Province  of  Saxony),  defending  Nicholas 
against  Paul's  criticism,  specifically  declared  against  his  theory  of  the 
eccentricity  of  water:  'quia  sic  ordo  elementorum  a  prima  creatione 
institutus,  &  inclinatio  naturalis  ad  centrum  universi  omnibus  elemen- 
tis  indita,  secundum  beatum  Augustinum,  &  ipsummet  Burgensem, 
cit6  cessassent':  Biagi,  however,  is  able  to  produce  a  passage  quite  as 
much  to  the  purpose  from  Averroes :  '  Aqua  enim  naturaliter  non 

moveretur  ad  centrum  totius,  nisi esset  locus  naturalis  aquae  idem 

cum  loco  terrae  naturali.'  De  coel.  et  m.,  n,  tex.,  com.  31.  And  more- 
over, the  cumulative  effect  of  Biagi's  other  citations  is  such  as  to 
convince  us  that  this  special  argument  was  well  within  the  range 
of  a  mind  like  Dante's,  even  if  it  had  never  been  specifically  indicated 
before. 

The  other  difficulties  1  had  suggested  were  of  an  opposite  character, 
for  there  are  two  errors  in  the  treatise  which  it  seems  hardly  likely 


256  Reviews 

Dante  would  fall  into.  In  a  corrupt  and  difficult  passage  towards  the 
close  of  the  treatise  (§  20),  the  author  bases  an  argument  on  the 
supposition  that  the  moon  is  always  south  of  the  equator  when  she 
is  in  perigee.  This  is  an  elementary  blunder,  but  I  argued  that  it  was 
of  such  a  nature  that  it  was  possible,  though  not  probable,  that  Dante 
might  make  it,  and  added :  '  Could  it  then  be  shewn  (though  I  am  not 
aware  that  it  can)  that  there  was  in  Dante's  time  a  semi-popular  idea 
that  the  moon  was  always  south  of  the  equator  in  perigee,  I  do  not 
think  we  could  be  quite  confident  that  Dante's  scientific  knowledge 
would  enable  him  to  reject  it.  Nevertheless  such  a  blunder,  if  not 
inconceivable,  would  remain  very  strange  and  unexpected.'  Now  Biagi 
refers  to  a  passage  in  which  Pliny  says  of  the  tides :  '  Eadem  [Luna] 
Aquilonia,  et  a  terris  longius  recedente,  mitiores  quam  cum,  in  austros 
digressa,  propiore  nisu  vim  suam  exercet'  (Nat.  Hist.,  II,  97  [99]). 
This  is  entirely  to  the  purpose ;  and  moreover  Biagi  declares  that 
a  figure  in  the  Laurentian  manuscript  of  Andal6  del  Negro  indicates 
(though  it  seems  difficult  to  understand  how  it  can  prove)  that  the 
theory  was  current  in  Dante's  time.  The  other  point  which  appeared 
to  me  to  require  explanation  occurs  in  §  19.  The  author  treats  the 
portion  of  a  sphere  intercepted  between  two  great  circles  as  shaped  like 
a  half-moon,  that  is  to  say,  as  unsymmetrical ;  whereas  Fazio  Degli 
Uberti  knew  better,  and  described  such  a  figure  symmetrically  as 
'  almond-shaped.'  This  point  seems  to  have  escaped  Dr  Biagi's  notice. 

It  results,  then,  that  out  of  the  three  points,  important  to  the  con- 
troversy, on  which  I  asked  for  light  in  1904,  Dr  Biagi  has  illustrated 
two,  and  those  two  by  far  the  most  important. 

Of  less  direct  bearing  on  the  disputed  question,  but  of  importance 
from  the  commentator's  point  of  view,  is  another  matter.  The  treatise 
twice  quotes  Averroes.  In  both  places  the  references  given  are 
incorrect,  and,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  the  passages  had  never  been  tracked 
to  their  real  sources.  Both  are  given  as  part  of  the  argument  urged  by 
the  adversary,  so  that  the  author  is  not  directly  responsible  in  either 
case  for  the  accuracy  of  the  reference ;  and  his  treatment  of  a  false 
ascription  of  opinion  to  Aristotle  elsewhere  in  the  treatise  warrants  us 
in  supposing  that  he  may  have  quoted  his  adversary,  references  and  all, 
without  concerning  himself  to  correct  his  inaccuracies,  though  sub- 
sequently refuting  his  arguments.  It  remains,  however,  a  matter  of 
interest  to  track  the  quotations  if  possible.  Dr  Biagi  enables  us  to  do 
so  in  both  cases,  though  here  we  find  striking  examples  of  his  weakness 
as  well  as  of  his  strength.  The  first  passage  occurs  in  §  5,  in  which  the 
adversaries  allege:  'Omnis  opinio  quae  contradicit  sensui,  est  mala 
opinio,'  and  cite  as  their  authority,  '  commentatorem  super  tertio 
De  Anima,'  on  which  I  noted  in  1904  that  no  passage  of  Averroes 
in  his  commentary  on  the  Third  Book  had  been  found  to  justify  this 
appeal.  Biagi  refers  us  to  the  place  '  dove  Aristotile  dice :  sensus  enim 

proprie  quidem  est  verus De  Anim.,  in,  tex.  161.1  The  reference  is 

wrong.  The  in  should  be  n,  for  this  part  of  the  treatise  falls  into 
the  second  book  according  to  the  divisions  of  the  text  commented  on 


Reviews  257 

by  Averroes.  In  u,  161,  then,  and  also  in  n,  152,  we  find  the 
Aristotelian  text,  but  not  the  comment  we  are  in  search  of,  nor 
anything  that  will  do  as  a  substitute.  But  in  illustrating  the  sub- 
stance of  the  paragraph,  Biagi  incidentally  quotes  from  Averroes 
the  very  words  we  want :  '  Omnis  opinio  cui  contradicit  sensus  non 

est  bona  opinio quod  apparet  sensui  est  testimonium  illius  quod 

apparet  rationi,'  and  gives  as  his  reference,  Phys.,  VIII,  text,  et  com.  65. 
But  again  the  reference  is  wrong ;  for  on  looking  it  up  we  find  indeed 
the  latter  part  of  the  quotation,  but  not  the  former,  which  is  just  the 
part  we  want.  Being  put  on  the  track  however  we  may  find  it,  not 
where  we  are  told  to  look  for  it  but  some  way  back  in  section  26. 
Biagi,  therefore,  while  putting  us  on  the  track,  at  the  same  time 
misdirects  us. 

The  second  reference  to  Averroes  occurs  in  §  18,  in  which  the 
authority  of  the  commentator  in  the  De  Substantia  Orbis  is  cited  for 
the  dictum :  'omnes  formae,  quae  sunt  in  potentia  materiae  idealiter,  sunt 
in  actu  in  mo  tore  coeli,'  on  which  I  noted  in  1904:  'No  such  passage 
has  been  found  in  the  De  Substantia  Orbis,  and  indeed  it  is  not  couched 
in  the  phraseology  of  that  treatise.'  Biagi  again  attempts  to  justify 
the  reference,  for  he  quotes  with  apparent  satisfaction  a  number  of 
passages  from  the  De  Substantia  Orbis, ^and  from  a  commentary  upon 
it  by  Giov.  de  Janduno,  which  are  little  to  the  purpose ;  but  in  the 
midst  of  them  he  gives,  as  a  quotation  not  from  Averroes  but  from 
Aristotle  (Met,  xn,  tex.  18),  exactly  what  we  want :  '  Formae  omnes  et 
proportiones  sunt  in  potentia  in  prima  materia,  et  in  actu  in  primo 
motore.'  Now  the  passage  does  not  occur  in  Aristotle  at  all.  It  is  not 
in  the  text,  but  at  the  end  of  the  long  commentary  by  Averroes;  so  that 
Biagi,  while  really  giving  us  Averroes  whom  we  want,  tells  us  that  he 
is  giving  us  Aristotle  whom  we  do  not  want,  and  almost  buries  the 
passage  in  a  number  of  irrelevances.  Surely  it  is  by  a  strange  fatality 
that  in  both  these  instances  Dr  Biagi  makes  a  vain  show  of  j  ustifying 
false  references  in  his  author,  and  in  incidentally  showing  us  how  to 
correct  them  involves  us  in  a  perfect  labyrinth  of  false  references  of  his 
own.  But  it  remains  true  that,  in  fine,  he  has  enabled  us  to  identify 
the  passages.  In  other  cases  I  have  found  his  references  fairly  correct. 

Turning  to  more  general  considerations,  it  may  be  said  that  a 
conspicuous  fault  in  Dr  Biagi's  book  is  his  tendency  to  mar  his  ex- 
tremely strong  case  by  representing  it  as  still  stronger  than  it  is.  He 
descends  to  outrageous  interpretations  of  Dante's  own  words  in  the 
Comedy  or  in  the  Eclogues,  in  order  to  remove  some  semblance  of 
alleged  contradiction;  and,  generally  speaking,  he  will  not  allow  any 
argument  of  his  opponents  to  have  any  validity,  however  slight.  His 
carelessness  in  the  spelling  of  foreign  names  is  indicative  of  the 
same  kind  of  general  looseness,  which  the  references  to  Averroes  reveal. 

But  for  all  that,  it  is  not  easy  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  the 
service  Dr  Biagi  has  rendered  us.  In  the  face  of  all  the  evidence  he 
has  collected  it  seems  impossible  any  longer  to  maintain  that  Dante 
cannot  have  written  the  De  Aqua  et  Terra.  We  must  further  thank 

M.  L.  E.  iv.  17 


258  Reviews 

him  for  the  interesting  light  he  has  thrown  on  the  state  of  knowledge 
and  opinion  on  all  cosmographical  matters  in  Dante's  time.  It  is  to  be 
noted  particularly  that  he  has  taken  his  drag-net  not  only  through  the 
great  oceans  of  Albertus  Magnus,  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Averroes,  but 
also  through  many  lesser,  obscurer,  and  more  inaccessible  seas  of 
medieval  learning. 

PHILIP  H.  WICKSTEED. 
CHILDREY,  BERKS. 


The  Life  of  Lazarillo  de  Tormes.  His  Fortunes  and  Adversities. 
Translated  from  the  edition  of  1554  (printed  at  Burgos).  With  a 
notice  of  the  Mendoza  family,  a  short  life  of  the  author,  Don  Diego 
Hurtado  de  Mendoza,  a  notice  of  the  work,  and  some  remarks  on 
the  character  of  Lazarillo  de  Tormes.  By  SIR  CLEMENTS  MARK- 
HAM.  London :  A.  and  C.  Black,  1908.  8vo.  xxxvi  4-  106  pp. 

This  is  a  very  disappointing  publication.  The  actual  translation  of 
the  text,  though  it  lacks  the  careless  grace  of  David  Rowland's  sixteenth 
century  version,  is  faithful  and  readable ;  but  the  introductory  matter 
is  disfigured  by  eccentricities  of  appreciation,  and  by  serious  errors 
which  imply  either  carelessness  or  an  insufficient  acquaintance  with 
the  elementary  facts  of  political  and  literary  history.  A  few  examples 
must  suffice.  It  is  surprising  to  read  that  Pedro  Gonzalez  Hurtado  de 
Mendoza  '  was  with  Juan  I,  of  Castille,  at  the  battle  of  Aljubarrota. 
In  the  flight  the  King's  horse  was  killed.  Mendoza  dismounted  and 
said  to  the  King: 

El  cavallo  vos  ban  muerto, 
Subid  Rey  en  mi  cavallo. 

The  King  rode  away.  Mendoza  was  overtaken  and  slain.  The  date 
of  the  battle  was  August  14,  1385.  His  father  survived  him,  dying  in 
1405.' 

It  is  true  that  Mendoza  was  killed  at  Aljubarrota,  but  the  story  of 
his  offering  his  horse  to  the  defeated  King  is  altogether  unhistorical. 
There  is  no  evidence  to  support  it,  and  General  Crispin  Ximenez  de 
Sandoval,  the  author  of  a  scholarly  treatise  on  the  battle  of  Aljubarrota, 
is  strongly  of  opinion  that  this  romantic  incident  was  invented  much 
later — suggested  by  similar  legends  concerning  Alfonso  III  and  Ber- 
nardo del  Carpio  at  Benavente,  and  Alfonso  VI  and  Rodrigo  Cisneros 
at  La  Sagra.  As  to  the  romance  quoted  above,  it  may  be  noted  that 
the  opening  half-line  has  been  lopped  of  a  syllable,  the  correct  form 
being 

Si  el  cavallo  vos  ban  muerto. 

However,  the  important  point  is  that  the  romance  in  question  was 
written  by  the  dramatist  Alfonso  Hurtado  de  Velarde  towards  the  end 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  cannot  therefore  have  been  quoted  two 
hundred  years  earlier. 


Reviews  259 

The  account  of  later  representatives  of  the  Mendoza  family  contains 
many  mistakes.  It  is  incorrect  to  say  (p.  xvii)  that  the  Marques  de 
Santillana  'was  born  in  1396':  it  is  well  established  that  this  cele- 
brated personage  was  born  on  August  19,  1398.  Nor  was  he  '  born  in 
the  Asturias '  (p.  xvii) :  his  birthplace  was  Carrion  de  las  Condes,  which 
is  in  Castile.  Again,  the  statement  that  Santillana  '  died  in  1454 '  is 
erroneous :  he  died  at  Guadalajara  on  March  25,  1458.  The  references 
to  Santillana's  work  are  not  much  more  satisfactory  than  the  sketch  of 
his  biography.  '  Among  his  writings,'  we  read,  '  was  a  little  Serranilla': 
and  this  is  followed  by  twelve  lines,  to  which  a  translation  is  appended. 
This  arrangement  is  misleading.  A  reader  unfamiliar  with  Santillana's 
poems  might  easily  imagine  that  he  had  before  him  the  complete  text 
of  a  unique  composition  by  the  author.  This  is  not  so.  Santillana 
wrote  at  least  ten  serranillas ;  the  poem  quoted  here  really  consists  of 
fifty-two  lines,  of  which  only  the  first  and  third  stanzas  are  given,  the 
latter  being  divided  arbitrarily  into  two  quatrains.  It  is  impossible  to 
justify  this  presentation  of  a  famous  classic  text,  and  few  students  will 
accept  the  subsequent  statement  (p.  xviii)  that  Santillana's  '  chief 
poetical  work... was  the  Comedieta  de  Ponza.'  All  competent  critics  are 
practically  unanimous  in  giving  the  first  place  to  Santillana's  serranillas, 
and  next  in  merit  come  the  Doctrinal  de  privados  and  Bias  contra 
Fortuna. 

The  biographical  sketch  of  Diego  Hurtado  de  Mendoza,  to  whom 
the  translator  ascribes  Lazarillo  de  Tormes,  leaves  much  to  desire. 
'  While  he  was  a  student  at  Salamanca,'  we  are  informed,  '  Don  Diego 
wrote  Lazarillo  de  Tormes '  (p.  xxiv).  On  the  face  of  it,  this  does  not 
seem  likely.  Mendoza  was  then  studying  for  the  Church,  and  it  is  in 
the  highest  degree  improbable  that  anyone  in  his  position  would  write 
the  compromising  satire  on  '  the  most  shameless  and  impudent  dis- 
tributor' of  Papal  Indulgences,  who  was  Lazarillo's  fifth  master.  A 
letter  from  Mendoza  to  Charles  V,  dated  May  2,  1547,  clearly  shows 
that,  almost  up  to  that  date,  the  writer  was  habitually  dressed  as  an 
ecclesiastic:  '...para  estorbar  muchas  esperanzas  que  se  tenian  en  mi 
clerecia...me  he  puesto  habito  de  lego.'  In  Sir  Clements  Markharn's 
narrative  there  is  no  mention  whatever  of  Mendoza's  embassy  to  England 
in  1537  to  negotiate  (1)  the  marriage  of  Henry  VIII  with  Charles  V's 
niece,  Dorothea,  Duchess  of  Milan,  and  (2)  the  marriage  of  Mary  Tudor 
with  Prince  Louis  of  Portugal:  particulars  will  be  found  in  the  Calendar 
of  State  Papers,  Henry  VIII,  vol.  xm,  parts  i  and  ii,  and  in  the  Spanish 
State  Papers  of  this  date  (1537-1538),  edited  by  Pascual  de  Gayangos. 
The  editor  of  the  present  volume  has  neglected  to  consult  these  sources, 
as  well  as  the  incomplete  but  useful  study  of  Fesenmaier,  published  at 
Munich  in  1882.  Not  a  word  is  said  as  to  Mendoza's  passages  of  arms 
with  Paul  III,  and  a  wrong  impression  is  conveyed  by  the  assertion 
that  '  he  was  not  appreciated  by  Philip  II  and  seldom  came  to  Court, 
living,  with  his  splendid  library,  in  his  house  at  Granada'  (p.  xxiv). 
Nobody  would  gather  from  this  bald  statement  that  Mendoza  had  been 
exiled  to  Granada  in  disgrace,  and  that  there  is  a  sharp  debate, as 

17—2 


260  Reviews 

to  whether  he  was  disgraced  in  consequence  of  irregularities  in  the 
accounts  rendered  of  his  stewardship  at  Siena,  or  whether  his  exile  was 
due  to  his  having  quarrelled  with,  and  assaulted,  a  certain  Diego  de 
Leiva  in  the  Royal  Palace  during  the  summer  of  1568. 

Bibliography  fares  no  better  than  biography,  so  far  as  Diego 
Hurtado  de  Mendoza  is  concerned1.  With  respect  to  his  Guerra  de 
Granada,  it  is  asserted  that  '  the  first  edition  appeared  in  1610,  and  the 
second  real  complete  edition  at  Valencia  in  1776.'  This  is  altogether 
wrong,  and  it  is  unfortunate  that  Sir  Clements  Markham  should  not 
have  taken  the  trouble  to  read  M.  Foulche-Delbosc's  study  in  the  first 
volume  of  the  Revue  hispanique,  which  appeared  fourteen  years  ago. 
Mendoza's  poems  were  published  in  1610 ;  but  the  first  edition  of  his 
Guerra  de  Granada  did  not  appear  till  1627  when  it  was  issued  at 
Lisbon  by  Luis  Tribaldos  de  Toledo:  the  supposititious  edition  of  1610 
has  never  been  seen  by  anybody,  and  has  nothing  to  support  it  but  an 
erroneous  entry  in  Nicolas  Antonio's  Bibliotheca  Hispana.  Nor  is  it 
accurate  to  say  that  the  second  edition  of  the  Guerra  de  Granada  was 
published  at  Valencia  in  1776.  The  second  edition  of  this  work  was 
issued  at  Madrid  in  1674,  the  third  at  Valencia  about  1730,  the  fourth 
at  Valencia  in  1766 :  the  edition  published  at  Valencia  in  1776  is  the 
fifth,  and  the  additional  passages  inserted  in  Books  in  and  iv  are 
reprinted  from  Juan  de  Iriarte's  Regice  Bibliothecce  Matritensis  codices 
greed  MSS.  published  at  Madrid  in  1769.  As  to  the  questions  whether 
we  have  Mendoza's  text  in  its  entirety,  or  whether  all  the  existing 
text  is  the  work  of  Mendoza,  the  reader  cannot  do  better  than  refer  to 
M.  Foulche-Delbosc's  illuminating  study.  The  problem  is  not  discussed 
in  the  present  volume ;  there  is  perhaps  no  good  reason  why  it  should 
be,  unless  indeed  Sir  Clements  Markham  be  justified  in  attributing 
Lazarillo  de  Tormes  to  Diego  Hurtado  de  Mendoza.  In  that  case  the 
examination  of  Mendoza's  other  works  becomes  obligatory. 

The  translator  leads  off  (p.  xv)  by  ascribing  Lazarillo  de  Tormes  to 
Diego  Hurtado  de  Mendoza,  remarking  in  a  curt  note  that  '  doubt  has 
been  thrown  on  the  authorship,  but  without  sufficient  reason.  See 
Antonio,  Bib.  Nov.,  i,  291.'  This  is  much  too  peremptory,  and  it  assumes 
what.it  is  the  writer's  duty  to  prove.  Anybody  would  think  from  the 
reference  that  Nicolas  Antonio  had  pronounced  decisively  in  favour  of 
the  ascription  to  Mendoza ;  even  if  it  were  so,  his  opinion  would  not  be 
final,  for  the  great  Spanish  bibliographer  was  not  a  contemporary,  and 
had  no  means  of  obtaining  special  information  on  the  subject.  But,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  and  as  M.  Morel-Fatio  has  pointed  out  in  a  conclusive 
examination  of  this  ascription  to  Mendoza,  Nicolas  Antonio  records  the 
attribution  in  very  guarded  terms.  '  Tribuitur  etiam  nostro,  juvenilis 
setatis,  ingenio  tamen  ac  festivitate  plenus,  quern  Salmanticae  elucubrasse 
dicitur,  libellus,  scilicet :  Lazarillo  de  Tormes  indigitatus.'  And,  so  far 
is  Antonio  from  committing  himself  to  a  positive  opinion,  that  he 

1  The  bibliographical  note  at  the  foot  of  p.  xxviii  omits  about  a  dozen  known  editions 
of  Lazarillo  de  Tormes. 


Reviews  261 

continues  as  follows :  '  Quamvis  non  desit  qui  Joannem  de  Ortega, 
Hieronymianum  monachum,  hujus  auctorem  asserat,  Josephus  videlicet 
Seguntinus  in  eius  ordinis  historiae  lib.  I,  cap.  xxxv.' 

Since  the  publication  of  M.  Morel-Fatio's  essay  twenty  years  ago  in 
the  first  series  of  his  fitudes  sur  I'Espagne,  there  is  no  excuse  for 
misapprehension  on  the  matter.  It  is  now  perfectly  well  known  to  all 
who  take  any  interest  in  the  question  that  the  anonymous  Lazarillo  de 
Tormes  was  first  ascribed  to  the  Jeromite  monk,  Juan  de  Ortega,  in 
Jose  de  Sigiienza's  Historia  de  la  orden  de  San  Geronimo  published  at 
Madrid  in  1605,  and  that  the  attribution  to  Mendoza  was  first  men- 
tioned two  years  later  by  Valere  Andre  in  his  Catalogus  clarorvm 
Hispanice  scriptorum,  which  (as  M.  Morel-Fatio  points  out)  is  the  rough 
sketch  of  Andre*  Schott's  Hispanice  Bibliotheca  published  in  1608.  It 
is  worth  noting  that,  in  his  recast,  Schott  is  careful  to  tone  down  Valere 
Andre's  too  positive  statement,  and  mentions  the  attribution  as  merely 
conjectural :  '  eius  esse  putatur  satyricum  illud  ac  ludicrum  Lazarillo 
de  Tormes,'  etc.  The  ascription  is  mentioned  as  being  current  by 
Tamayo  de  Vargas  in  an  unpublished  bibliography  which  he  compiled 
in  1622,  and  Antonio  follows  Tamayo  de  Vargas,  as  Tamayo  de  Vargas, 
follows  Schott,  and  as  Schott  follows  Andre.  It  is  plain  that  there  is  no- 
real  authority  for  the  ascription  to  Mendoza,  and,  as  M.  Morel-Fatio 
observes,  it  is  significant  that  it  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  in  passing 
by  the  editor  of  Mendoza's  poems  in  1610,  nor  by  Baltasar  de  Zuniga 
in  his  life  of  Mendoza  which  precedes  the  first  edition  of  the  Guerra  de 
Granada  published  at  Lisbon  in  1627.  .  Everything  points  to  the 
conclusion  that  Lazarillo  de  Tormes  is  one  of  several  works  ascribed  at 
random  to  Mendoza.  It  is  conceivable,  no  doubt,  that  he  wrote  it ; 
there  is  nothing  chronologically  impossible  in  the  attribution :  but  the 
presumption  is  against  it,  and  the  burden  of  proof  rests  wholly  with 
Sir  Clements  Markham,  and  those  who  agree  with  him — if  there  are 
any  such. 

Many  other  points  in  the  introduction  invite  comment.  It  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  '  the  first  edition  [of  Lazarillo  de  Tormes]  in  Spain 
was  published  at  Burgos  in  1554.'  As  I  pointed  out  long  ago  in 
reviewing  M.  Morel-Fatio's  book  the  only  solid  reason  for  thinking  the 
Burgos  edition  was  the  first  published  in  Spain  is  that  the  Alcala 
edition  is  described  as  '  nuevamente  impressa,  corregida  y  de  nuevo 
anadida  en  esta  segunda  impression ' ;  but  this  reason  is  less  solid  than 
it  seems  at  first  sight,  for  the  Alcala  edition  was  finished  on  February  26, 
1554,  and  even  if  we  assume  that  the  Burgos  edition  was  available  in 
the  first  week  of  January,  we  may  doubt  if  it  was  possible  in  the 
sixteenth  century  to  procure  the  book  at  Burgos,  forward  it  to  Alcala, 
reprint  it  there  with  woodcuts  and  textual  alterations,  and  complete 
the  work  by  the  end  of  February.  It  is  practically  certain  that  the 
Alcala  edition  of  Lazarillo  de  Tormes  is  earlier  than  the  Burgos  edition, 
and  that  both  derive  from  a  previous  edition  as  yet  undiscovered :  on 
this  point  no  reasonable  doubt  is  left  by  M.  Foulche-Delbosc's  Remarques 
sur  Lazarillo  de  Tormes  in  the  seventh  volume  of  the  Revue  hispanique. 


262  Reviews 

Accordingly,  it  is  not  quite  clear  that  a  translator  is  well-advised  in 
basing  his  version  on  the  Burgos  edition  which,  by  the  way,  was 
examined  by  Professor  Ottokar  Weber  on  behalf  of  Dr  Wilhelm  Lauser 
some  seven  or  eight  years  before  Butler  Clarke,  in  whose  convenient 
reprint,  used  by  Sir  Clements  Markham,  M.  Foulche-Delbosc  has  noted 
92  errors.  There  is  some  reason  to  think  that  the  early  translation  of 
Lazarillo  de  Tonnes  into  English  was  published  before  1586  (p.  xxix) — 
perhaps  ten  years  before  this  date.  The  translation  was  licensed  in 
1568-9,  and  the  unique  copy  of  Til  Howleglas  in  the  Bodleian  Library 
contains  a  relevant  manuscript  note  by  Gabriel  Harvey: — 'This  Howies- 
glass,  with  Skoggin,  Skelton,  and  Lazarillo,  given  me  at  London,  of 
Mr  Spensar,  xx  December  [15]78.'  It  would  be  endless  to  note  mis- 
prints, such  as  '  Inigo '  for  Inigo  (pp.  xv,  xvi,  xvii,  xviii,  xix  and  xx)  and 
'Albacain '  for  Albaicin  (p.  xxiii).  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that 
these  introductory  pages  are  inadequate,  and  are  calculated  to  mislead 
beginners  very  seriously. 

JAMES  FITZMAURICE-KELLY. 

LONDON. 


The  Origin  of  the  English  Nation.  By  H.  MUNRO  CHADWICK.  (Cam- 
bridge Archaeological  and  Ethnological  Series.)  Cambridge : 
University.  Press,  1907.  8vo.  351  pp. 

Mr  Chadwick's  book  is  a  valuable  example  of  the  method  which  is 
now  likely  to  lead  to  the  best  results  in  the  study  of  Old  English 
philology  and  history.  The  two  generations  which  separate  us  from 
the  days  of  Grimm  have  seen  so  many  keen  wits  concentrated  upon  a 
somewhat  narrow  field  that  there  is  often  little  left  for  the  philologist 
pure  and  simple  to  do,  except  to  spin  new  theories  out  of  facts 
long  known  and  tabulated,  which  have  already  yielded  to  previous 
workers  all  that  can  be  legitimately  drawn  from  them.  But  there  is, 
and  there  will  long  be,  work  for  the  man  who  can  concentrate  upon  a 
single  problem  the  results  of  several  branches  of  study.  This  is  what 
Mr  Chadwick  does :  '  In  general  he '  [the  author]  '  has  sought  to  make 
use  of  all  branches  of  ethnological  study — history,  tradition,  language, 
custom,  religion,  and  antiquities.'  When  a  writer  is  able  to  discuss  the 
difficult  question  of  the  origin  of  Angle  and  Saxon  in  the  light,  not 
only  of  the  Old  English  dialects,  but  also  of  brooch  patterns  and  burial 
customs  his  work  is  certain  to  be  stimulating. 

Any  attempt  to  synthetize  the  evidence  as  to  English  origins  is,  as 
Mr  Chadwick  complains,  hampered  by  the  backward  state  of  the  study 
of  archaeology  in  England ;  the  neglect  of  this  study  offers  a  striking 
contrast  to  the  almost  exaggerated  attention  which  has  been  given  to 
certain  philological  problems;  but  in  spite  of  this,  Mr  Chadwick  has 
shown  how  the  evidence  of  archaeology,  folklore  and  comparative  law 
can  be  made  to  supplement  and  elucidate  the  evidence  of  language. 

A  second  edition  of  the  book  ought  soon  to  be  called  for,  and,  in 


Reviews  263 

view  of  this,  we  venture  to  draw  attention  to  certain  points,  which 
might  perhaps  be  reconsidered  when  the  book  is  reissued.  Mr  Chadwick 
states  that  in  Canute's  (spurious)  Forest  Laws,  §  33,  the  Lex  Angliorum 
et  Werinorum  hoc  est  Thuringorum  is  referred  to  under  the  title  of  Lex 
Werinorum,  i.e.  Thuringorum.  Now  these  '  Forest  Laws,'  the  origin  of 
which  is  obscure,  though  they  are  certainly  much  later  than  the  time 
of  Canute,  were  first  printed  in  Harrison's  description  of  England,  pre- 
fixed to  Holinshed's  Chronicle  in  1577.  Here  the  passage  runs  secundu 
legem  merimorum.  When  Holinshed's  Chronicle  was  posthumously 
reissued  in  1587  merimorum  was  altered  to  Werinorum,  i.e.  Thuringo- 
rum. Since  readers,  from  Shakespeare  downwards,  have  chiefly  used 
the  edition  of  1587,  this  supposed  early  English  reference  to  the  law 
of  the  continental  Angles  has  been  quoted  and  requoted.  Yet  the 
alteration  from  merimorum  to  Werinorum,  i.e.  Thuringorum  was  only  a 
conjecture  of  Francis  Thynne,  or  of  one  of  his  fellow-editors,  who  knew 
the  great  collection  of  early  German  laws  published  by  Johann  Heroldt 
at  Basle.  But  Liebermann's1  discovery,  in  1894,  of  a  MS.  of  the  Forest 
Laws — a  MS.  of  the  sixteenth  century,  but  earlier  than  Holinshed — 
proves  that  '  merimorum '  is  simply  a  printer's  blunder  for '  Mercinorum.' 
The  allusion  is  then  to  the  Mercian  law,  and  the  theory  that  there  was 
any  knowledge  of  the  continental  Anglian  law  in  England,  until  it 
became  the  common  property  of  antiquarians  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
must  be  dismissed  to  that  limbo  of  Pseudo-Germanica  where  the  goddess 
Hertha  reigns. 

Again,  Mr  Chadwick 's  arguments  do  not  quite  support  his  con- 
clusions when  he  urges  that  the  life  of  a  German  tribe  was  entirely 
bound  up  with  that  of  the  King  and  his  retainers :  '  What  I  cannot 
admit  however  is  that  in  the  total  absence  of  evidence  we  have  any 
right  to  assume  the  existence  of  a  national  organization,  independent  of 
the  King  and  his  officials  and  retainers.... If  the  King  was  overthrown, 
unless  some  member  of  the  family  contrived  in  one  way  or  another  to 
retrieve  its  fortunes,  the  national  organization  was  liable  to  perish 
altogether.  Such  was  the  case  with  the  Rugii  in  488,  and  with  the 

Thuringi  in  531 As  a  rule  we  may  say  that  in  early  times  the  life  of 

a  nation  hung  together  with  that  of  its  native  dynasty.  If  the  latter 
was  overthrown  the  nation  as  a  nation  ceased  to  exist'  (pp.  171,  172). 
Undoubtedly  this  statement  represents  one  side  of  the  truth,  but  it 
needs  to  be  very  largely  qualified.  Thus  when  GuShere  was  destroyed 
in  437  'cum  populo  atque  stirpe  sua2'  the  Burgundian  nation  ought, 
according  to  Mr  Chadwick's  view,  to  have  broken  up.  It  did  not  do  so, 
however,  except  in  saga  and  poetry :  as  a  fact  of  history,  so  soon  as  the 
children  grew  up  to  manhood,  the  nation  reappeared.  We  have  no 
evidence  that  any  member  of  the  royal  family  retrieved  the  national 
fortunes:  we  do  not  even  know  that  the  new  dynasty  was  related  to 

1  See  article  by  Liebermann  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  Rechtsgeschichte,  xxvm,  174. 
Germanistische  Abtheilung.  Liebermann  (in  his  Gesetze  der  Angelsachsen)  dates  this 
MS.  c.  1570. 

-  Prosper  Aquitauus. 


264  Reviews 

the  old  one,  though  it  is  quite  likely  that  it  was1.  And  the  case  of  the 
Rugii,  quoted  by  Mr  Chadwick,  is  really  stronger  evidence  against  his 
view  than  that  of  the  Burgundians.  The  Rugian  dynasty  was  not,  as 
Mr  Chadwick  states,  entirely  destroyed  by  Odoacer :  the  prince  Frederic 
survived  and  lived  to  lead  the  Rugians  into  Italy  under  Theodoric. 
Here,  indeed,  he  perished,  about  the  year  492,  and,  so  far  as  we  know, 
the  Rugian  royal  line  became  extinct.  But  the  sequel  was  the  reverse 
of  what  Mr  Chadwick  argues.  Living  under  an  Ostrogothic  dynasty,  and 
apparently  scattered,  like  their  Ostrogothic  fellow -subjects,  throughout 
Italy,  the  Rugians  kept  their  race  pure  by  refusing  to  intermarry  with 
other  tribes,  and  finally,  after  the  lapse  of  half  a  century,  in  541,  asserted 
their  political  existence  by  electing  a  king  of  their  own.  The  evidence 
of  Procopius  is  conclusive  upon  this  point2.  Again,  the  tragic  story  of 
the  downfall  of  the  Ostrogoths  shows  clearly  that,  independent  of  the 
royal  kin,  there  was  both  a  national  organization  and  a  national  spirit. 
At  a  critical  moment  in  their  war  with  the  Eastern  Empire  the  Goths 
felt  themselves  betrayed  by  the  representative  of  that  Amal  line  to 
which  they  had  looked  for  leadership  during  three  centuries.  So  they 
deposed  him  in  full  assembly,  and  elected  another  king,  not  of  royal  or 
even  of  very  noble  race.  Then,  for  eighteen  years,  they  kept  up  the 
struggle,  against  two  of  the  greatest  generals  the  world  has  known ; 
after  each  successive  disaster  rallying  to,  and  electing  as  king,  whatever 
chief  seemed  best  able  to  maintain  the  national  independence.  In  this 
case  the  nation  certainly  showed  a  very  vigorous  life,  apart  from  its 
native  dynasty,  although  indisputably  the  betrayal  of  the  national 
cause  by  that  dynasty  cruelly  hampered  the  nation. 

Mr  Chadwick 's  work  would  probably  have  been  more  useful  had  he 
shown  less  originality  in  his  views.  When  a  writer  is  bringing  half  a 
dozen  different  branches  of  study  to  bear  upon  one  subject,  he  can 
afford,  in  each  of  those  branches,  to  follow  the  lines  which  have  been 
generally  accepted.  Revolutionary  theories  may  be  reserved  for  mono- 
graphs where  the  subject  can  be  exhaustively  discussed.  But,  with 
regard  to  the  chronology  of  the  principal  Germanic  sound-changes, 
Mr  Chadwick  breaks  quite  away  from  the  orthodox  view.  He  abandons 
the  generally  accepted  dogma  of  the  early  division  of  the  Germanic 
languages  into  three  great  groups,  West,  North,  and  East,  with  East 
and  North  linked  by  a  few  common  characteristics.  He  divides  only 
into  Gothic  and  non-Gothic.  'There  is  evidence  that  it  [Gothic] 
differed  greatly  from  Scandinavian,  English,  and  German  alike  at  a 
time  when  the  differences  between  these  three  languages  themselves 
were  insignificant '  (p.  64).  The  sound-changes  which  differentiate 

1  A  member  of  the  later  dynasty  refers  to  Gundahari  and  the  kings  before  him  as 
'  auctores  nostros ' ;   but  it  has  been  doubted  whether  he  means  more  than  '  our  pre- 
decessors.' 

2  De  Bell.  Gott.  m,  2,  of  5£  'Po-yoi  OVTOI  fffvm  n£v  flat.  TorQuco?  a.vrovott,oi  rt  TO  ira\a.tov 
ffiluv.      QevSeplxov  dt  avrovs  TO  KCLT  dpxas  irpofftTaipiffaiJ^vov  %vv  aXXotJ  Tifflv  fdveaiv,  &  re  TO 
ytvos  dirfK^Kpa'TO  /cat  %vv  airrois  ft  TOVS  iroXefiiovs  airavra.  i-irpaffffov.     yvvai^l  fi^vroi  us  TJKiffTa. 
firifj.tyvvfj.evoi   dXXorp/atj,  d.Kpai<pvffft   vaiStav    StaSoxa-t*  TO  TOV   EOvovs  ovofia  £v  <r<f>i<riv  avroit 

.     TOVTOV  TOV  'Epdpixov . .  .fiaffiXta  £K  TOV  al(f>vidiov  ol  'Poyol  dveivov. 


Reviews  265 

English  from  Scandinavian  on  the  one  hand  and  from  German  on  the 
other  Mr  Chadwick  regards  as  the  work  of  the  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh 
centuries  (p.  223).  Now,  if  this  could  be  proved,  it  would  simplify 
many  a  knotty  problem  in  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  English 
race  and  language.  But  to  prove  it  would  require  an  independent 
work :  and  although  Mr  Chadwick  has  elsewhere  expressed  the  same 
view1,  neither  there  nor  here  has  he  been  free  to  go  at  all  fully  into  the 
question.  And  for  two  reasons  the  burden  of  proof  lies  upon  him.  In 
the  first  place  Professor  B  rentier's2  elaborate  study  of  the  chronology  of 
the  Germanic  sound  laws  holds  the  field.  Bremer  thinks  that  some  of 
the  peculiarities  which  differentiate  the  dialects  of  the  Old  English  and 
Frisian  coast  tribes  from  those  of  their  Scandinavian  and  German 
neighbours  go  back  to  the  first  century  B.C.,  and  the  first  century  A.D.; 
and  his  arguments  have  got  to  be  faced  and  refuted.  In  the  second 
place  there  is  a  printa  facie  improbability  about  Mr  Chadwick's  view. 
From  at  least  the  first  century  B.C.  German  tribes  had  occupied  the 
vast  regions  from  Bavaria  to  Scandinavia,  separated  by  mighty  forests, 
morasses  and  arms  of  the  sea:  and  when  literary  documents  become 
available  we  accordingly  find  wide  divergencies  of  dialect.  That  all 
these  divergencies  sprang  up  between  the  fifth  and  seventh  century 
A.D.:  and  that  from  the  first  century  B.C.  to  the  fourth  century  A.D. 
either  no  dialectal  peculiarities  grew  up,  or  only  such  as  happened  later 
to  become  obliterated,  is  certainly  very  improbable.  Mr  Chadwick's 
view  is  interesting,  and  an  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  subject  from  his 
pen  would  certainly  be  most  valuable :  but  a  new  and  unproved  theory 
ought  not  to  be  assumed  as  a  dogma  in  a  work  like  the  present,  where 
space  does  not  allow  of  its  being  discussed  at  length. 

Mr  Chadwick  also  breaks  away  from  the  accepted  view  in  dealing 
with  another  point,  which  is  small  enough  in  itself,  yet  one  upon  which 
a  good  deal  depends,  if  the  history  of  the  Germanic  saga  and  the 
affinities  of  different  tribes  are  to  be  made  out :  '  I  cannot  admit  that 
one  is  justified  in  assuming  the  identity  of  the  names  Sceaf  and  Sceafa ; 
for  though  Beo  and  Beowa  do  apparently  occur  side  by  side  such  cases 
are  quite  exceptional'  (p.  282).  On  the  contrary  it  would  be  easy  to  collect 
a  fair  number  of  cases  in  which  names,  especially  those  of  traditional  and 
eponymous  heroes  are  found  both  in  the  strong  and  in  the  weak  form. 
Thus  we  have  HretJles  (Beow.,  2358)  against  HreSlan  [MS.  Hradlan] 
(Beow.,  454) ;  Scyld  in  Beowulf  and  Ethelwerd  against  Sceldwa  in  the 
Parker  MS.  of  the  Chronicle,  in  Asser,  and  in  Florence  of  Worcester ; 
Geat  in  the  Parker  MS.  against  Geata  in  MS.  Cott.  Tib.  A  6  of  the 
Chronicle;  Hors  in  the  Historia  Brittonam,  against  the  more  usual 
Horsa.  Add  to  these, the  Beowa  of  the  charter  (Birch,  n,  677)  against 
Beaw  in  the  Parker  MS.,  add  the  O.H.G.  instances  quoted  by  Miillenhoff 
long  ago3,  and  we  certainly  have  enough  examples  to  justify  a  belief 

1  Transactions  of  the  Cambridge  Philological  Society,  iv,  2  (1899),  pp.  259—265. 

2  Indogermanische  Forschungen,  iv    (1894),   pp.    8 — 31:    'Kelative  Chronologic'  von 
Otto  Bremer. 

3  Zeitschrift  Jiir  deutsches  Altertum,  xn,  260. 


266  Reviews 

that  the  early  King  Sceafa  of  Widsith  is  the  same  as  the  Sceaf  of  the 
Chronicle. 

Finally,  we  differ  from  Mr  Chadwick  in  his  attempt  to  draw  any 
chronological  data  from  references  in  Old  English  heroic  poetry  to 
historical  persons  of  the  time  of  the  migrations :  '  The  time,'  says 
Mr  Chadwick,  '  at  which  Eadgils,  lord  of  the  Myrgingas,  lived  is  fortu- 
nately made  clear  by  several  passages  in  Widsith.  The  poet  states 
(1.  94)  that  he  was  in  Eadgils'  service,  and  (1.  5  ff.)  that  in  company 
with  Ealhhild,  who  was  apparently  either  the  wife  or  a  near  relative  of 
that  prince1,  he  visited  the  court  of  Eormenric,  King  of  the  Goths. 
Eormenric  rewarded  him  for  his  poetry  with  a  valuable  bracelet,  which 
on  his  return  home  he  gave  to  Eadgils  (1.  90  ff.).  It  is  clear  then  that 
Eadgils  and  Eormenric  were  contemporaries.  But  we  know  from 
Ammianus  Marcellinus  that  the  latter  died  about  the  year  370.... 
Consequently  we  can  hardly  go  wrong  in  concluding  that  Eadgils  lived 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.' 

But  this  is  to  neglect  the  fact  that  heroic  tradition  usually  repre- 
sents all  its  heroes  as  contemporary,  or  nearly  contemporary,  though 
they  may  have  lived  in  widely  different  ages.  Thus,  to  take  the  stock 
example,  Ragnar  Lodbrok  is  son-in-law,  and  Gunnarr  brother-in-law 
of  Sigurd ;  yet  the  historic  Ragnar  is  separated  by  many  centuries  from 
the  historic  Gundahari.  And  nowhere  is  this  confusion  of  periods  more 
obvious  than  in  Widsith.  Among  the  retinue  of  Eormenric  (d.  375) 
Widsith  meets  Eastgota  (fl.  c.  250)  and  Theodric,  who  is  either  the 
Frank  (d.  534)  or  the  Ostrogoth  (d.  526),  as  well  as  Freotheric,  perhaps 
the  Rugian,  who  died  about  492.  These  are  engaged  in  fighting  the 
people  of  ^Etla  (Attila)  who  died  in  453.  Further  Widsith  visits 
GuShere,  who  was  slain  in  437,  and  ^Elfwine  (Alboin)  who  was  slain  in 
572  or  573.  Widsith  is,  in  fact,  a  summary  of  heroic  lore,  as  current  at 
the  end  of  the  sixth  or  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century ;  and  in 
this  heroic  tradition  all  great  chiefs,  who  during  three  centuries  had 
broken  into  the  dying  Roman  Empire,  appear  as  contemporaries.  No 
chronological  argument  can  be  drawn  from  Widsith,  or  indeed  from  any 
heroic  poem  of  a  similar  kind. 

But  though  we  may  differ  on  these,  and  on  other  points  of  detail, 
from  Mr  Chadwick,  such  difference  in  no  way  interferes  with  a  very 
genuine  appreciation  of  his  book — a  book  which  treats,  in  a  manner  at 
once  original  and  sane,  of  topics  with  which  it  is  not  easy  to  deal 
without  being  either  commonplace  or  eccentric. 

R.  W.  CHAMBERS. 
LONDON. 


1  This  however  is  very  doubtful.     Cf.  Heinzel  in  the  Vienna  Sitzungsberichte,  cxiv, 
514 ;   Jiriczek,  Deutsche  Heldensagen,  i,  73 ;   Lawrence  in  Modern  Philology,  iv,  351. 


Reviews  267 


A  Glossary  of  Wulf stem's  Homilies.  By  LORING  HOLMES  DODD  (Yale 
Studies  in  English,  xxxv).  New  York:  Henry  Holt  and  Co., 
1908.  8vo.  244  pp. 

This  volume,  one  of  the  'Yale  Studies  in  English,'  furnishes  Napier's 
edition  of  Wulfstan's  Homilies  (Berlin,  1883)  with  a  glossary.  We  are 
given  the  meanings  and  the  various  grammatical  forms  of  the  words 
which  occur  in  the  editor's  critical  text  only,  many  interesting 
expressions  which  occur  in  the  variant  readings  being  excluded. 
The  glossary  scarcely  gives  the  requisite  amount  of  help,  as  whole 
phrases  and  idioms,  which  are  likely  to  cause  difficulty,  are  left 
unexplained.  It  is  also  vitiated  by  the  compiler's  adoption  of  the 
antiquated  method  of  dividing  verbs  into  transitive  and  intransitive, 
all  verbs  that  are  not  followed  by  the  accusative  being  regarded  as 
intransitive.  The  more  logical  method  would  have  been  to  show  what 
verbs  require  a  noun  or  a  noun-equivalent  to  complete  their  meaning, 
which  could  be  done  by  specifying  what  case  or  cases  those  verbs 
govern.  Verbs  such  as  helpe  (his  sylfes)  39/15,  helpan  (georne  earmum 
mannum)  119/5,  (heora  dgenum  lustum)  fulleodan  106/2,  (Me  ftcpra  fie) 
abyrgft  (blodes)  136/24,  (deaftes)  abyrgan  149/19,  (celces  unrihtes) 
geswlcan  142/11,  (men)  gelefaft  (to  hwon  Drihtnes  sylfes  wrendgewrites) 
206/4,  (men  ne  woldon)  gelefan  (Noes  worde}  206/16,  hlogen  (men  his 
worda)  206/11  etc.,  which  require  a  noun  (sometimes  two)  or  a  noun- 
equivalent  in  the  genitive  or  dative  as  a  complement,  are  not  logically 
intransitive.  Here  and  there  the  meanings  of  the  words  are  not 
clearly  defined,  e.g.  strec  105/34  means  '  mighty '  not  '  fierce ' ;  cercet 
135/2  may  mean  '  eating  too  soon ' ;  unstenc  139/8  is  '  evil  odour '  not 
'stench';  cemelnys  139/18  'sloth'  not  'false  dealing'  (see  B.-T.  Supple- 
ment); o/Srihte  145/4  'oppress'  not 'thrust';  amolsnian  147/29  (applied 
to  the  eyes)  'decay,'  'loose  power'  not  'rot';  gemanian  148/16  'claim' 
not  'remind';  and  com  in  the  sentence  hwcer  com  ftisse  worlde  wela 
means  'go'  or  'become'  not  'come.'  The  various  senses  of  fting  are  not 
given.  Words  like  bred(n)  'board'  or  'tablet,'  dat.  brede  146/22,  and 
seon,  3  sg.  pr.  sihft  147/28  are  omitted.  There  are  also  some  errors  in 
analysis,  heanra  148/10  is  the  comp.  of  hean  'poor'  not  of  heah;  witod 
151/17  is  the  past  participle  of  witian,  'decree'  used  as  an  adj.  and  not 
another  form  of  the  adv.  witodlice]  aftere  34/7  is  ace.  sing.  fern,  not 
dat.  sing.  fern,  of  afior  (ahwafoer);  in  the  sentence  'Saet  ge  eow  to 
gamene  feonda  afillaS'  132/20  ('strike  down')  feonda  is  an  ace.  pi.  form; 
and  gebyrge  119/4  is  the  dat.  of  *gebyrge  or  *gebierge,  a  neut.  ja-stem 
and  not  of  gebeorg.  '  Misprints  are  numerous.  The  glossary  throws  no 
new  light  on  the  many  obscure  words  found  in  Old  English  prose  and 
poetry. 

O.  T.  WILLIAMS. 
BANGOR. 


268  Reviews 

Club  Law.  A  Comedy  acted  in  Clare  Hall,  Cambridge,  about  1599- 
1600.  Now  printed  for  the  first  time  from  a  MS.  in  the  Library 
of  St  John's  College,  with  an  introduction  and  notes  by  G.  C. 
MOORE  SMITH.  Cambridge :  University  Press.  1907.  4to.  Iviii 
+  143  pp. 

Dr  Moore  Smith  has  been  fortunate  in  his  researches  into  the 
academic  drama,  and  not  least  so  in  the  recovery  of  Club  Law,  a 
scholarly  edition  of  which  is  now  available.  For  our  knowledge  of  the 
performance  of  the  play  we  are  indebted  to  Fuller,  for  our  previous 
knowledge  of  the  MS.  to  the  sale-catalogue  of  Farmer's  library  and  an 
apparently  misleading  note  by  Hawkins.  It  was  in  the  summer  of 
1906  that  Dr  Moore  Smith  discovered,  in  the  library  of  St  John's 
College,  Cambridge,  a  MS.  which  seems  to  have  found  its  way  there 
somewhere  between  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  and  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  and  which  at  once  corresponds  with  that  described 
in  Farmer's  catalogue  and  contains  a  play  which  is  pretty  certainly  that 
mentioned  by  Fuller.  Fuller  placed  the  performance  in  1597-8;  Haw- 
kins, without  further  specification,  said  that  'other  authorities'  assigned 
it  to  1599.  The  present  editor  argues  strongly  for  the  latter  date  on 
the  ground  of  the  identification  of  the  characters  with  real  civic  digni- 
taries of  the  time,  and  further  investigation,  since  the  publication  of  the 
play,  has  finally  confirmed  this  view.  Dr  Moore  Smith  has  favoured  m 
with  an  account  of  the  matter. 

'The  Date  of  Club  Law.' 

'Fuller  assigns  Club  Law  to  the  academical  year  1597-8,  in  the  Vice- 
Chancellorship  of  Dr  John  Jegon  and  the  mayoralty  of  James  Robson. 
This  statement  is  not  self-consistent,  inasmuch  as  Robson  did  not 
become  mayor  till  a  year  later.  I  showed  grounds  for  thinking  the 
true  date  to  be  1599-1600  ("  perhaps  probably,  at  the  beginning  of  that 
mayoral  year  ").  The  Vice-Chancellor  was  then  Dr  Robert  Soame  and 
the  mayor  John  Yaxley. 

A  footnote  in  an  article  by  the  Rev.  Dr  H.  P.  Stokes  in  the 
Benedict  (the  magazine  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge)  for  1899, 
which  Dr  Stokes  kindly  lent  me,  directed  me  to  a  mention  of  Club  Law 
in  a  manuscript  in  the  library  of  Jesus  College.  This  manuscript,  now 
classed  R.  3.  42,  was  kindly  found  for  me  by  my  friend  Mr  Abbott,  the 
librarian.  It  is  a  history  of  the  University  of  Cambridge  in  the  form 
of  annals.  The  scheme  extends  to  the  year  1645  but  the  last  entry  is 
two  or  three  years  earlier.  This  is  probably  the  date  of  the  manuscript. 
Here  under  the  year  1599  (i.e.  1599-1600)  and  under  the  Vice-Chan- 
cellorship of  Robert  Soame,  we  find  this  note : 

Aula  Clarensis. 

Club  Law  fabula  festivissima  data  multum  ridentibus  Academic-is,  frustra 
Oppidanis  dolentibus. 

— a  very  satisfactory  confirmation  of  the  date  I  had  arrived  at  from  the 
internal  evidence  afforded  by  the  play. 


Reviews  269 

This  confirmation,  however,  became  more  striking  when  I  found  that 
a  note  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  book  in  another  hand  (perhaps 
that  of  the  Jesus  historian,  Sherman)  ascribes  the  manuscript  to  Fuller 
himself.  The  annotator  points  out  that  under  the  year  1620  the  author 
refers  to  two  men  as  his  uncles,  who  are  known  to  have  been  uncles  of 
Fuller's.  These  annals  are  therefore  a  preliminary  outline  of  the 
published  history,  and  the  dating  of  Club  Law  in  the  latter  is  probably 
due  to  some  careless  slip. 

I  think  it  may  now  be  taken  as  certain  that  the  date  of  Club  Law  is 
the  winter  of  1599-1600,  and  that  Niphle  in  the  play  stands  for  the 
Mayor  of  Cambridge,  John  Yaxley.' 

A  large  portion  of  Dr  Moore  Smith's  introduction  is  occupied  with 
the  persistent  differences  between  the  Town  and  Gown,  in  which  Club 
Law  formed  one  rather  striking  incident.  The  ground  of  the  whole 
quarrel  was  the  divided  jurisdiction,  and  it  was  really  a  difference 
among  the  authorities,  though  the  rabble  on  either  side  was  ready 
enough  to  make  this  an  excuse  for  indulging  its  propensities  for  riot. 
Much  interesting  material  is  here  collected  to  which  only  passing 
allusion  can  be  made.  The  play  remains  anonymous,  though  the 
authorship  of  George  Ruggle  is  held  to  be  not  impossible.  To  one 
small  point  exception  may  perhaps  be  taken.  Mentioning  Macray's 
remark  that  one  Francis  Brakyn  is  satirized  in  Club  Law,  the  editor 
adds:  'There  is,  however,  no  ground  for  this  statement... and  it  is 
unfortunate  that  it  has  been  perpetuated  in  the  New  English  Dic- 
tionary.' The  sentence  there  quoted  is  merely  given  for  the  sake  of 
the  expression  '  Club-Law,'  and  as  Brakyn's  name  does  not  occur,  the 
charge  of  perpetuating  the  error  seems  superfluous. 

W.  W.  GREG. 

CAMBRIDGE. 


Jacques  Peletier  du  Mans  (1517-1582).  Essai  sur  sa  vie,  son  ceuvre, 
son  influence.  Par  CLEMENT  JUGE.  Paris :  Lemerre,  1907.  8vo. 
xv +  449  pp. 

Cette  monographie,  consacree  a  un  precurseur  de  Ronsard,  que  les 
dernieres  recherches  sur  la  Renaissance  ont  remis  en  pleine  lumiere,  a 
le  double  merite  de  mettre  au  point  les  diverses  decouvertes  recemment 
faites  sur  Peletier  et  d'y  ajouter  de  nouvelles  et  pre"cieuses  donnees. 

Dans  la  premiere  partie,  J.  Peletier  humaniste  et  theoricien,  M.  Juge 
etudie  la  vie  du  poete,  son  osuvre  de  traducteur,  de  reTormateur  de 
1'orthographe,  ses  theories  litteraires ;  dans  la  deuxieme  partie,  J.  Peletier 
potte,  il  donne  une  analyse  et  un  commentaire  judicieux  des  divers 
recueils  poetiques ;  dans  la  troisieme  partie,  J.  Peletier  auteur  populaire, 
M.  Juge  examine  et  etablit  quels  titres  justifient  1'attribution  a  Peletier 
des  Nouvelles  Recreations  et  Joyeux  Devis ;  dans  la  quatrieme  partie,  J. 
Peletier  ecrivain,  c'est  le  style  du  poete  et  du  prosateur  qui  est  6tudie. 

Qu'il  nous  soit  permis  de  presenter  tout  d'abord  quelques  critiques. 


270  Reviews 

Une  bibliographic  commence  1'ouvrage ;  elle  apporte  de  1'inedit ;  mais 
on  regrette  que  M.  Juge  ait  borne  ses  recherches  '  aux  bibliotheques  de 
Paris'  (p.  1).  L'enquete  est  insuffisante :  di verses  bibliotheques  de 
province  en  France  et  quelques  bibliotheques  de  1'etranger  doivent  etre 
fouillees,  quand  on  entreprend  1'etude  d'un  ecrivain  du  xvie  siecle.  II 
est  regrettable  que  M.  Juge  n'ait  pas  donne  dans  la  bibliographic  des 
oeuvres  de  Peletier  la  description  plus  complete  de  1'ouvrage,  format, 
impression,  contenu,  et  la  transcription  de  la  feuille  du  titre :  ce  sont  la 
des  indications  qu'exige  a  bon  droit  aujourd'hui  1'erudition.  Par  exemple, 
a  propos  des  Euvres  poetiques  parues  en  1581,  les  indications  trop 
sommaires  de  M.  Juge  ne  me  permettent  pas  de  savoir  si  ce  recueil,  tres 
rare,  est  bien  de  1'edition  dont  j'ai  sous  les  yeux  le  detail  bibliographique 
beaucoup  plus  complet. 

Pour  les  sources,  M.  Juge  apporte  trop  souvent  des  affirmations  de 
seconde  main.  II  accorde  trop  d'importance  (p.  26)  a  La  Croix  du 
Maine,  guide  tres  precieux  assurement,  mais  dont  les  indications  sont 
sujettes  a  controle.  P.  115,  M.  Juge  cite  en  note  un  auteur  moderne 
pour  nous  dire  ce  qu'il  faut  penser  du  talent  dialectique  de  Th.  de  Beze: 
on  prefererait  avoir  le  jugement  personnel  de  M.  Juge,  qui  montre 
ailleurs  dans  ses  commentaires  beaucoup  de  finesse  et  de  precision. 

Faute  de  se  reporter  aux  sources  et  de  contrdler  les  dates,  M.  Juge 
a  neglige  une  partie  interessante  de  son  sujet,  je  veux  parler  de  la 
renaissance  du  platonisme  et  de  la  part  que  Peletier  y  a  prise.  M.  Juge 
place  en  1547  (p.  183)  le  mouvement  platonicien,  se  referant  sans 
doute  a  la  date  de  1'edition  des  Opuscules  d' Amour :  or  les  Opuscules  ne 
sont  que  la  reimpression  collective  d'ceuvres  imprimees  des  1541  et 
1542.  A  plusieurs  reprises  M.  Juge  attribue  la  renaissance  du  platonisme 
aux  Lyonnais,  ou  comme  il  le  dit,  a  1'ecole  lyonnaise,  a  la  societe  de 
Lyon  (pp.  184,  207,  232) ;  or,  les  poetes  de  Lyon  n'ont,  ni  plus  ni  moins 
que  d'autres,  fait  du  platonisme  la  matiere  de  leurs  vers,  et  tout  ce 
qu'on  peut  discuter,  c'est  si  le  Lyonnais  M.  Sceve  est  plus  grand  qu'Ant. 
Heroet  '  Parisien.'  M.  Juge  semble  parfois  confondre  le  petrarquisme  et 
le  neo-platonisme,  et  il  est  bien  vrai  que  tous  deux  se  font  de  1 'amour 
une  conception  a  peu  pres  identique :  mais  le  platonisme  a  devance  le 
petrarquisme  et  lui  a  survecu ;  ajoutons  que  le  style  d'Heroet  est  aussi 
solide  et  aussi  eleve  que  celui  des  petrarquistes  est  fade  et  plat.  Mais 
encore  quelle  fut  la  part  de  Peletier  dans  cette  renaissance  du  platonisme  ? 
Ce  que  dit  M.  Juge  des  relations  personnelles  de  Peletier  avec  Sceve  et 
Pontus  de  Tyard  (pp.  79  et  83),  de  1'inspiration  platonicienne  contenue 
dans  les  poemes  scientifiques  qui  suivent  I' Amour  des  Amours,  ce  qu'il 
dit  meme  de  ce  petit  recueil  et  des  rapprochements  a  faire  avec  1'oeuvre 
de  M.  Sceve,  toutes  ces  indications  devaient  inviter  1'auteur  a  creuser  la 
question ;  elle  est  d'un  interet  capital  pour  1'histoire  de  la  pensee  et  de 
la  litterature. 

Ces  reserves  faites,  il  faut  reconnaitre  que  I'reuvre  de  Peletier  est 
vaste  et  melee,  et  Ton  doit  feliciter  M.  Juge  d'avoir  mene  a  bien  une 
entreprise  ardue,  d'avoir  donne  aussi  a  son  erudition  1'attrait  d'un 
style  elegant  et  d'un  expos6  toujours  lumineux.  La  biographic  de 


Reviews  271 

Peletier  est  pleine  de  renseignements  nouveaux  et  curieux ;  en  particulier 
M.  Juge"  a  apporte  des  documents  pr^cieux  sur  les  relations  de  Peletier 
avec  Ronsard  et  du  Bellay  en  1543,  et  sur  ses  fonctions  de  principal  au 
college  de  Bayeux  et  au  college  du  Mans. 

L'analyse  des  recueils  poetiques  est  entremelee  d'aper9us  exacts  et 
judicieux.  La  question  de  1'attribution  des  Nouvelles  Recreations  et 
Joyeux  Devis  a  Peletier  est  reprise  et  traite"e  a  fond ;  la  discussion  est 
serree,  et  la  demonstration  me  parait  definitive ;  il  faut  se  rallier  aux 
conclusions  de  M.  Juge" :  Peletier  est  1'auteur  principal  des  Nouvelles 
Recreations. 

F.  GOHIN. 

RENNES. 


MINOR   NOTICES. 

Professor  J.  E.  Spingarn's  Critical  Essays  of  the  Seventeenth  Century 
(Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1908.  2  vols.),  taken  along  with  Drydens 
Critical  Essays,  edited  by  Professor  Ker,  fills  in  the  gap  between  the 
Elizabethan  Critical  Essays,  edited  by  Professor  Gregory  Smith  and  the 
Eighteenth  Century  Essays  on  Shakespeare,  edited  by  Professor  D.  Nicol 
Smith.  The  student  may  now  consider  that  he  has  the  English  critical 
theories  of  three  centuries  presented  to  him  in  the  handiest  possible 
form.  Professor  Spingarn  draws  upon  a  wide  range  of  authors — Bacon, 
Jonson,  Webster,  Chapman,  Edmund  Bolton,  Peacham,  Drayton,  Henry 
Reynolds,  Sir  William  Alexander,  Sir  John  Suckling,  Milton,  Davenant, 
Hobbes,  Cowley,  Flecknoe,  Sir  Robert  Howard,  Sprat,  Shadwell,  Rymer, 
Edward  Phillips,  Joseph  Glanvill,  Samuel  Butler,  Lord  Rochester,  Lord 
Mulgrave,  Lord  Roscommon,  and  Evelyn.  The  book  begins  with  an 
Introduction  and  concludes  with  terse  explanatory  notes — in  both  of 
which  Professor  Spingarn  avails  himself  of  his  profound  knowledge  of 
Italian  and  other  continental  critical  writers  with  great  effect.  The 
Introduction  is  a  masterly  and  illuminating  piece  of  work,  of  nearly 
100  pages.  Its  various  sections  deal  with  I.  The  Jacobean  Outlook : 
Bacon  and  Jonson ;  II.  Early  Caroline  Tentatives ;  III.  The  New 
Aesthetics:  Hobbes  and  Davenant;  IV.  The  Trend  towards  Simplicity; 
V.  The  Theory  of  Translation;  VI.  Wit  and  Humour;  VII.  The 
School  of  Sense :  Rymer ;  VIII.  Poetry  and  Morals ;  IX.  The  School 
of  Taste.  Specially'  interesting  is  the  account  of  the  change  in  the 
style  of  pulpit  eloquence  given  under  Section  IV.  It  is  perhaps  a  pity 
that  Professor  Spingarn  has  not  supplied  an  index  of  the  authors  and 
works  referred  to  in  his  pages.  If  he  had  done  so,  the  utility  of  his 
book  would  have  been  greatly  increased. 

G.  C.  M.  S. 


272  Minor  Notices 

The  second  edition  of  the  late  Dr  R.  J.  Lloyd's  book  on  Northern 
English  (Skizzen  Lebender  Sprachen,  I.  Leipzig:  B.  G.  Teubner,  1908) 
differs  but  little  from  the  first.  Now  that  a  knowledge  of  elementary 
English  phonetics  is  required  of  all  Normal  students,  it  is  a  pity  that 
this  book  does  not  lend  itself  better  to  their  requirements.  The  intro- 
ductory sections  suffer  from  over-elaboration  of  definition  and  the 
phonetic  terminology  is  unnecessarily  large  and  crabbed.  It  is  this 
excessive  coinage  of  new  words  and  phrases  which  has  so  often  made 
the  study  of  phonetics  repellent  to  the  beginner.  The  system  of  vowel 
positions  given  in  §  80 — a  modified  form  of  it  is  used  in  Professor 
Rippmann's  Sounds  of  Spoken  English — furnishes  much  greater  diffi- 
culties for  the  average  student  than  Bell's  system,  and  it  would  have 
been  more  satisfactory  had  the  latter  been  adapted  by  Dr  Lloyd.  Some 
of  the  space  devoted  to  grammar,  both  accidence  and  syntax,  which  is 
after  all  nearly  the  same  for  all  parts  of  England,  might  have  been 
given  to  a  brief  discussion  of  those  points  in  which  genuine  dialect  in 
different  parts  of  northern  England  tends  to  diverge  from  the  standard 
of  educated  speech.  There  are  some  useful  phonetic  transcripts  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  book  arranged  in  descending  order  of  formality — 
formal  (A),  careful  (B),  and  careless  (C).  At  least  one  passage  might 
with  advantage  have  been  given  in  the  first  two  transcripts,  A  and  B, 
as  it  would  have  helped  the  student  to  observe  the  differences  of  detail. 
The  passages  in  C  are,  of  course,  of  too  colloquial  a  character  ever  to  be 
spoken  after  the  fashion  of  A  or  B. 

A.  M. 

The  Language  and  Dialect  of  the  Later  Old  English  Poetry  by  Jane 
Weighbman  (Liverpool:  University  Press,  1907)  is  an  excellent  example 
of  the  good  work  which  is  being  done  for  English  in  our  provincial 
universities,  a  field  in  which  they  threaten  to  outstrip  Oxford  and 
Cambridge.  The  thesis  is  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first  of  these  is 
purely  statistical,  taking  each  dialect  in  turn  and  observing  how  often 
those  forms  which  are  typical  of  certain  dialects  are  used,  in  comparison 
with  forms  belonging  to  other  dialects.  More  useful  and  important  is 
the  second  part  which  discusses  in  detail  the  whole  series  of  sound 
changes  in  Old  English,  whether  isolative  or  combinatory,  noting  all 
variations  from  the  normal  West  Saxon  type  and  explaining  irregular 
forms  as  far  as  possible.  Here  the  treatment  is  full  and  exhaustive, 
and  one's  only  regret  is  that  there  is  no  index  of  the  numerous  forms 
discussed.  Such  an  index  would  make  it  a  valuable  handbook  of 
reference  for  the  explanation  of  dialectal  and  other  difficulties  which 
meet  us  at  every  turn  in  reading  Old  English  poetic  texts.  At  the 
end  of  the  thesis  we  have  a  brief  discussion  of  the  dialect  of  Cynewulf, 
and  though  the  author  agrees  with  the  generally  accepted  verdict  that 
Cynewulf's  dialect  is  Mercian,  she  shows  that  the  grounds  on  which 
that  verdict  has  hitherto  been  based  are  largely  untenable.  Wiilker's 
conclusions  are  right,  but  his  premises  are  wrong.  The  discussion  of 


Minor  Notices  273 

Cynewulf  s  rhymes  is  interesting  and  their  evidence  is  fairly  conclusive 
in  favour  of  his  Mercian  origin. 

A.  M. 

Of  the  numerous  theses  which  appear  from  time  to  time  on  different 
aspects  of  the  Beowulf  question  none  are  more  fruitful  and  suggestive 
than  those  which  deal  with  the  history  and  geography  of  the  poem. 
In  his  pamphlet,  Folknamnet  Geatas  i  den  fornengelska  dikten  Beowulf 
(Upsala :  Almqvist  och  Wiksell,  1907),  Dr  Henrik  Schlick  has  given  an 
illuminating  discussion  of  the  difficult  problem  of  the  identity  of  the 
Geatas  in  Beowulf.  At  times  he  weakens  his  case  by  too  minute 
special  pleading,  but  few  will  be  able  to  dispute  the  arguments  by 
which  he  finally  identifies  the  Geatas  with  the  Gautar  of  Southern 
Sweden.  Incidentally  he  offers  an  explanation  of  a  very  difficult 
passage  in  the  well-known  voyage  of  Ohthere  as  told  by  Alfred  in  his 
Orosius.  We  learn  there  that  when  Ohthere  sailed  from  Skiringsal  to 
Hedeby  he  had  Denmark  on  his  port  side  for  the  first  three  days  (with 
the  open  sea  on  the  starboard)  and  then  for  two  days  Gotland  and 
Sillende  and  the  islands  belonging  to  Denmark  on  his  port  side.  The 
confusion  of  direction  is  clear.  Hitherto  it  has  been  explained  either 
by  saying  (1)  that  Ohthere  is  here  confusing  right  and  left  hand  when 
speaking  long  after  the  event — which  is  very  unlikely — or  (2)  that 
Southern  Sweden  was  then  in  the  hands  of  Denmark  and  that  the 
name  of  the  sovereign  country  is  applied  to  all  its  territories,  a  sup- 
position entirely  contrary  to  the  general  usage  of  the  time.  Dr  Schiick 
suggests  that  Alfred  in  reporting  the  narrative  of  Ohthere  has  in  a 
moment  of  confused  memory  put  Denmark  where  he  meant  Gotland 
(i.e.,  Vastergotland  in  Sweden)  and  Gotland  where  he  meant  Denmark 
or  Jutland.  The  whole  pamphlet  is  interesting  and  full  of  happy 
illustrations  and  suggestions,  however  much  we  may  disagree  with  some 
of  its  author's  conclusions. 

A.  M. 

There  is  nothing  very  new  or  original  in  Dr  Louis  Round  Wilson's 
dissertation,  Chaucer's  Relative  Constructions  (University  of  North 
Carolina  Studies  in  Philology,  Vol.  I.  Chapel  Hill :  University  of 
North  Carolina  Press,  1906),  though  any  contribution  towards  the 
elucidation  of  the  many  untouched  problems  of  Middle  English  Syntax 
is  welcome.  The  author  has  collected  a  good  number  of  useful  examples 
for  the  various  relative  constructions,  but  it  is  when  he  comes  to  the 
discussion  of  some  really  knotty  point  that  his  weakness  is  apparent. 
He  relies  too  much  upon  the  citation  of  secondary  authorities  without  a 
direct  and  independent  discussion  of  inferences  drawn  from  the  actual 
facts  on  which  their  theories  are  based.  The  'who'  in  'as  who  sayth'  is 
certainly  indefinite  and  not  relative,  and  the  author  throughout  under- 
estimates the  importance  of  the  indefinite  pronouns  and  pronominal 
adjectives  'who'  'which'  and  'what'  in  the  development  of  the  corre- 

M.  L.  E.  iv.  18 


274  Minor  Notices 

spending  Middle  English  relative  forms.  Their  development  cannot  be 
properly  explained  by  reference  either  to  pure  interrogative  or  pure 
indefinite  forms ;  they  probably  result  from  the  influence  of  both. 

A.  M. 

Professor  Capetti,  who  has  been  well-known  for  the  last  twenty 
years  as  an  acute  student  of  Dante,  here  collects  together  in  a  volume 
entitled  L'  Anima  e  V  Arte  di  Dante  (Livorno,  Giusti,  1907)  some 
specimens  of  his  latest  work.  The  seven  essays,  some  of  which  have 
been  delivered  as  lectures,  have,  at  first  sight,  but  a  very  slender  thread 
of  connection ;  yet  it  may  justly  be  claimed  that  the  title  is  neither 
inappropriate  nor  far-fetched.  Whether  he  treats  of  Dante's  world 
beyond  the  tomb,  on  the  broadest  lines  of  comparative  anthropology,  or 
of  Beatrice,  or  of  the  '  Cantos  of  Pessimism,'  or  those  of  'Hatred/  it  is 
the  reaction  and  interplay  of  the  poet's  soul  upon  his  art,  and  vice  versa, 
that  he  attempts  to  illustrate.  The  author  has  made  a  special  study 
of  the  'Oltratomba'  in  Aryan  literature;  and  his  essays  in  other  respects 
show  marks  of  ripe  culture  and  wide  learning. 

L.  R. 

From  the  firm  of  Olschki  in  Florence  we  have  received  Signer 
Aluigi  Cossio's  Sulla  '  Vita  Nuova'  di  Dante  (1908).  Written  in 
Manchester,  and  dedicated  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Salford, 
to  Dr  Moore  and  to  William  Warren  Vernon,  by  an  Italian  disciple  of 
R.  della  Torre  and  F.  X.  Kraus,  this  study  of  the  Vita  Nuova  reflects 
in  its  many  aspects  a  many-sided  culture.  Among  its  chief  merits  are 
a  good  Bibliography  of  the  subject  and  an  excellent  note  on  Codices, 
Editions  and  Translations.  There  are  two  concise  chapters  on  the 
dolce  stil  nuovo  and  its  precursors :  the  rest  of  the  book  is  devoted  to 
the  Vita  Nuova  itself  and  to  Beatrice,  whose  literary  fortunes  are 
followed,  through  the  period  of  scepticism  to  the  championship  of 
Alessandro  D'Ancona  and  the  period  of  sound  reaction.  Signor  Cossio 
holds  that  Beatrice  is  a  real  living  person  as  well  as  an  ideal  and  a 
symbol,  but  does  not  see  sufficient  reason  for  identifying  her  with  the 
daughter  of  Folco  Portinari. 

L.  R. 

The  house  of  Le  Monnier  has  done  well  to  follow  the  lead  of 
Sansoni,  the  publisher  of  the  '  Lectura  Dantis '  delivered  in  Florence, 
by  issuing  two  volumes,  dealing  with  the  Inferno,  of  Lectura  Dantis 
Genovese  (Florence,  Le  Monnier,  1904-6).  Each  canto  has  a  separate 
essay  devoted  to  it,  delivered  as  a  lecture  to  the  Genoese  Scientific  and 
Literary  Association.  The  volumes  are  prefaced  by  a  preliminary 
sketch  of  Dante,  the  '  Man  and  the  Poet,'  by  Padre  G.  Semeria,  and  the 
list  of  contributors  includes  such  convincing  names  as  Del  Lungo  and 
Parodi,  while  the  text  of  each  canto  has  been  revised  by  Giuseppe 


Minor  Notices  275 

Vandelli.  F.  Buttrini,  commenting  on  the  eleventh  canto,  shows  no 
leanings  towards  -the  '  Righettian  heresy,'  but  unconsciously  furnishes 
arguments  on  the  other  side. 

L.  R. 


It  is  almost  surprising  how  much  literature  appears  in  English  in 
the  course  of  the  year  dealing  with  the  life  and  work  of  Goethe.  New 
editions  of  Faust  are  always  on  the  market.  Mr  Frowde  has  added  the 
poem,  together  with  Marlowe's  Faustus,  to  his  World  Library,  with  a 
valuable  introduction  by  Dr  A.  W.  Ward,  Messrs  Bell  have  made  the 
old  prose  version  of  Hay  ward  the  basis  of  an  illustrated  edition  de  luxe, 
and  an  entirely  new  translation  by  Sir  George  Buchanan  (London : 
Alston  Rivers,  1908)  has  appeared  within  the  past  few  months.  Messrs 
Blackwood  have  reprinted  the  translations  of  Goethe's  lyrics  by  Sir 
Theodore  Martin  and  W.  Aytoun,  which  originally  appeared,  if  we  are 
not  mistaken,  as  far  back  as  1859 ;  Messrs  Gowans  and  Gray  have 
added  to  their  international  series  a  selection  of  Goethe's  Lyrische 
Gedichte,  with  an  Introduction  by  Professor  R.  M.  Meyer;  and  Messrs 
Bell  have  sent  us  the  revised — and  as  far  as  we  have  tested  it,  admirably 
and  thoroughly  revised — translation  of  Dichtung  und  Wahrheit,  by  Miss 
Minna  Steele  Smith,  which  forms  two  volumes  of  their  York  Library. 
This  edition  has  the  advantage  of  a  full  yet  concise  bibliographical 
introduction  by  Dr  Breul,  similar  to  that  with  which  he  introduced 
the  translation  of  Faust  published  in  the  same  series  a  few  years  ago. 
Meanwhile,  Professor  W.  A.  Cooper  has  completed  his  translation  of 
A.  Bielschowsky's  Life  of  Goethe  (3  vols.  New  York  and  London: 
G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  1905-8).  It  is  perhaps  open  to  doubt  whether 
a  translation  of  Bielschowsky  can  be  of  great  service  to  the  English 
reader  who  has  not  behind  him  a  knowledge  of  Goethe  impossible  in 
one  who  requires  to  read  the  book  in  translation,  and  who  has  not, 
what  is  still  more  difficult  for  the  foreigner  to  acquire,  an  understanding 
of  the  modern  German  attitude  of  mind  to  Goethe.  More  is  taken 
on  trust  by  Bielschowsky  than  a  foreign  public,  unfamiliar  with  this 
German  standpoint,  is  willing  to  accept.  Still  it  would  be  unfair,  now 
that  the  work  is  in  English,  not  to  feel  grateful  to  Professor  Cooper 
for  his  conscientious  and  careful  labours.  His  English  style  is  un- 
fortunately not  always  above  reproach,  but  the  chief  occasion  for  regret 
is  the  prohibitive  price  at  which  the  book  is  published — 45s.  for  what 
in  the  original  German  costs  14s.  bound !  Surely  this  is  out  of  all 
proportion. 

From  Mr  Fisher  Unwin  we  have  received  a  reprint  of  the  translation 
of  H.  Dtintzer's  Life  of  Goethe,  by  Thomas  N.  Lyster,  originally 
published  in  1883.  It  seems  late  in  the  day  to  republish  a  book  of 
this  kind,  for  even  in  Germany,  the  methods  of  Dlintzer  have  happily 
become  an  'iiberwundener  Standpunkt';  and  his  dry  style  and  inability 
to  discriminate  between  the  important  and  the  unessential  are  even  less 
likely  to  find  favour  with  us.  But  Duntzer  contains  facts,  and  it  is 

18—2 


276 


Minor  Notices 


perhaps  an  advantage  to  have  these  facts,  even  so  inelegantly  'Englished' 
as  here,  for  the  price  of  half-a-crown.  Lastly,  it  has  to  be  noted  that 
Lewes's  evergreen  Life  of  Goethe  has  been  added  to  Messrs  Dent's 
Everyman  Series.  The  new  edition  is  introduced  by  Mr  Havelock  Ellis, 
who,  in  dealing  with  the  question  of  Lewes's  continued  vitality  and  the 
correctness  of  his  standpoint,  protests,  we  think,  a  little  too  much.  It 
can  hardly  be  denied  that  Lewes  is  beginning  to  date  now-a-days,  and 
to  date  seriously,  but  not  so  much  in  his  facts  as  in  his  critical 
judgments:  sins  of  omission  are  not  likely  to  weigh  heavily  with 
foreign  readers,  who,  if  anything,  are  inclined  to  resent  the  increasing 
fullness  of  our  knowledge  of  Goethe's  life  and  work.  Lewes's  opinions 
have  often  a  distinctly  'early  Victorian'  flavour;  and,  more  frequently 
than  Mr  Ellis  seems  aware,  simply  reflect  the  views  of  the  German 
Hegelian  critics  who  were  in  the  ascendancy  when  Lewes  wrote.  But 
there  is  plenty  of  life  in  Lewes's  Goethe  yet,  and  an  annotated  and 
corrected  edition  would  still  be  acceptable  to  English  readers. 

J.  G.  R. 


NEW  PUBLICATIONS. 
September — November,   1908. 

GENERAL. 

BERLOIN,  A.,  La  parole  humaine.  Etudes  de  philologie  nouvelle  d'apres  une 
langue  d'AmJrique.  Paris,  Champion.  5  fr. 

LOGEMAN,  H.,  Tenuis  en  Media.  Over  de  Stemverhouding  bij  Konsonanten  in 
moderne  talen  met  een  Aanhangsel  over  de  fonetiese  verklaring  der  Wetten 
van  Verner  en  Grimm.  Ghent,  E.  van  Goethem.  8  fr. 

SCHWIETERING.  J.,  Singen  und  Sagen.  Gottingen,  Vandenhoeck  und  Ruprecht. 
1  M.  40. 

SOAMES,  L.,  Introduction  to  English,  French  and  German  Phonetics.  New  ed. 
London,  Soiinenschein.  6s. 

TUCKER,  T.  G.,  An  Introduction  to  the  Natural  History  of  Language.  London. 
Blackie.  10s.  Qd.  net. 


ROMANCE   LANGUAGES. 

Bibliotheca  romanica.  47,  F.  Petrarca,  Rime,  I  trionfi;  48,  49,  G.  Boccaccio, 
Decameron,  in ;  50,  P.  Corneille,  Cinna ;  51,  52,  L.  de  Camoes,  Os  Lusfadas, 
vin-x ;  53,  54,  Le  Chanson  de  Roland,  d'apres  le  manuscrit  d'Oxford ; 
55-58,  A.  de  Musset,  Poesies  (1828-33);  59,  G.  Boccaccio,  Decameron,  IV; 
60,  61,  Maistre  Pierre  Pathelin;  62,  63,  G.  Leopardi,  Poesie,  Canti ;  64,  65, 
Chateaubriand,  Atala.  Strassburg,  J.  H.  E.  Heitz.  Each  number  10  pf. 

Latin. 

EKKEHARD,  Waltharius.  Ein  Kommentar  von  J.  W.  Beek.  Groningen,  Noord- 
hoff.  2  fl. 

SCHISSEL  VON  FLESCHENBERG,  0.,  Dares-Studien.     Halle,  Niemeyer.     5  M. 

Italian. 

ALFIERI,  V.,  L'  opera  poetica,  scelta  di  tragedie  e  di  poesie  minori  con  intro- 
duzione,  commento  e  tre  saggi  critici  di  N.  Vaccalluzzo.  Livorno,  Giusti. 
3  L.  30. 

BOCCACCIO,  G.,  Laberinto  d'  amore,  con  un  giudizio  sull'  amore  del  Boccaccio  di 
G.  Carducci.  Naples,  Soc.  Editr.  Partenopea.  1  L. 

CARDUCCI,  G.,  Conversazioni  critiche.     Nuova  ediz.     Naples,  Colagrande.    1  L. 
CARDUCCI,  G.,  Prose  (1859—1903).     4a  ediz.     Bologna,  Zanichelli.     10  L. 


278  New  Publications 

CARD,  A.,  Prose  scelte  pubblicate  ed  illustrate  per  cura  di  M.  Sterzi.  Livorno, 
Giusti.  2  L.  60. 

CARTWRIGHT,  J.,  Baldassare  Castiglione,  the  Perfect  Courtier,  his  Life  and 
Letters.  2  vols.  London,  Murray.  30s.  net. 

CASINI,  T.,  Manuale  di  storia  letteraria  italiana.  I,  i.  Dalle  origin!  al  trecento. 
Milan,  Soc.  Editr.  Dante  Alighieri.  2  L.  50. 

Cossio,  A.,  Sulla  '  Vita  Nuova '  di  Dante.  Studio  critico-letterario.  Florence, 
Olschki.  10  L. 

DANTE  ALIGHIERI,  La  divine  come'die.  Trad,  et  comm.  par  A.  Meliot.  Paris, 
Garnier  freres.  7  fr.  50. 

DANTE  ALIGHIERI,  Vita  Nova,  suivant  le  texte  critique  de  M.  Barbi.  Trad,  et 
notes  par  H.  Cochin.  Paris,  Champion.  5  fr. 

DANTE  ALIGHIERI,  Vita  Nuova,  together  with  the  Version  of  D.  G.  Rossetti. 
Edited  by  H.  Oelsner.  (King's  Classics.)  London,  Chatto  and  Windus. 
Is.  6d.  net. 

Dante  e  la  Lunigiana,  Nel  vi  Centenario  della  venuta  del  poeta  in  Valdimagra. 
(Biblioteca  Letteraria.)  Milan,  Hoepli.  9  L.  50. 

FORNACIARI,  B.,  Fra  il  nuovo  e  1'  antico.  Prose  letterarie.  (Biblioteca  Lette- 
raria.) Milan,  Hoepli.  6  L. 

Italian  Poets,  chiefly  before  Dante.  The  Italian  Text  with  translations  by 
D.  G.  Rossetti.  London,  A.  H.  Bullen.  Is.  6d. 

MARTIGIANI,  G.,  II  romauticismo  italiano  non  esiste.  Saggio  di  letteratura 
comparata.  Florence,  Seeber.  3  L.  50. 

NEGRI,  G.,  Opere,  Vol.  iv.  4a  ediz.  postuma  a  cura  di  M.  Scherillo.  (Biblioteca 
Letteraria.)  Milan,  Hoepli.  6  L. 

NOVATI,  F.,  Freschi  e  minii  del  dugento.  Conferenze  e  letture.  Milan, 
Cogliati.  4  L.  25. 

PASCOLI,  G.,  Le  canzoni  di  re  Enzio.  i.  La  canzone  de  Caroccio.  Bologna, 
Zanichelli.  2  L. 

SCROCCA,  A.,  Saggi  danteschi.     Naples,  Perrella.     1  L.  50. 

TRISCHITTA,  G.,  I  canti  di  G.  Leopardi  e  1'  eterno  femminino  studiato  nei  due 
saggi  'Donne  reali  a  creature  poetiche'  ed  'Estetica  della  donna.'  Messina, 
Muglia.  2  L. 

Provencal. 

ANGLADE,  J.,  Les  troubadours,  leurs  vies,  leurs  ceuvres,  leur  influence.  Paris, 
Colin.  3  fr.  50. 

MISTRAL,  F.,  Ausgewahlte  Werke.  tTbersetzt  und  erlautert  von  A.  Bertuch. 
n.  Band.  Stuttgart,  Cotta.  4  M.  50. 

SCHROTTER,  W.,  Ovid  und  die  Troubadours.     Halle,  Niemeyer.     3  M. 

Spanish. 

CERVANTES  SAAVEDRA,  M.  DE,  Don  Quixote.  Vollstandige  deutsche  Ausgabe 
unter  Bermtzung  der  anonymen  Ubertragung  von  1837  besorgt  von 
K.  Thorer.  3  vols.  Leipzig,  Insel-Verlag.  10  M. 

CERVANTES  SAAVEDRA,  M.  DE,  Selections  from  Don  Quixote.  Edited  with 
notes  and  vocabulary  by-J.  D.  M.  Ford.  Boston,  Heath.  80  c. 

Cien  Mejores  Poesfas  (Lyricas)  de  la  Lengua  Castellana.  Glasgow,  Gowans  and 
Gray.  Is.  net. 


New  Publications  279 

FITZMAURICE- KELLY,  J.,  Chapters  on  Spanish  Literature.  London,  Constable. 
7s.  6d.  net. 

Lazarillo  de  Tormes,  The  Life  of,  his  Fortunes  and  Adversities.  Translated 
from  the  edition  of  1554  by  Sir  Clements  Markham.  London,  Black. 
5s.  net. 

French. 

(a)  General  (incl.  Language}. 

DAUZAT,  A.,  La  langue  frangaise  d'aujourd'hui,  Evolution,  problemes  actuels. 
Paris,  A.  Colin.  3  fr.  50. 

GEDDES,  J.,  Study  of  an  Acadian-French  Dialect  spoken  on  the  North  Shore 
of  the  Baie-des-Chaleurs.  Halle,  Niemeyer.  20  M. 

JABERG,  K.,  Sprachgeographie.  Beitrag  zum  Verstandnis  des  Atlas  linguistique 
de  la  France.  Aarau,  Sauerlander.  6  fr. 

KORTING,  G.,  Etymologisches  Worterbuch  der  franzosischeu  Sprache.  Pader- 
born,  Schoningh.  11  M. 

LANSON,  G.,  Histoire  de  la  littdrature  francaise.     2e  e"d.    Paris,  Hachette.    4  fr. 

MARTHOLD,  J.  DE.  L'argot  du  xve  siecle,  le  jargon  de  Frangois  Villon.  Paris, 
Daragon.  '8  fr. 

Melanges  de  linguistique  offerts  k  M.  F.  de  Saussure.  Paris,  Champion. 
10  fr.  50. 

NYROP,  K.,  Grammaire  historique  de  la  langue  francaise.  in.  Copenhagen, 
Gyldendal.  7  kr. 

TOBLER,  A.,  Vermischte  Beitrage  zur  franzosischen  Grammatik.  in.  2.  Aufl. 
Leipzig,  Hirzel.  6  M. 

(b)  Old  French. 

SETTEGAST,  F.,  Die  Sachsenkriege  des  franzosischen  Volksepos  auf  ihre  ge- 
schichtlichen  Quellen  untersucht.  Leipzig,  Harrassowitz.  2  M. 

SOMMER,  H.  0.,  Messire  Robert  de  Borron  und  der  Verfasser  des  Didot- 
Perceval.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Kritik  der  Graal-Romane.  (Zeitschrift  fur 
rom.  Phil.,  xvn.  Beiheft.)  Halle,  Niemeyer.  1  M.  60. 

(c)  Modern  French. 

EIRE,  E.,  Romans  et  romanciers  contemporains.     Paris,  Lamarre.     8  fr. 

BRANDES,  G.,  Anatole  France.  (Contemporary  Men  of  Letters.)  London, 
Heinemann.  Is.  6d.  net. 

DOUMIC,  R,,  Etudes  sur  la  litteYature  frangaise.  vie  Se"rie.  Paris,  Perrin. 
3  fr.  50. 

DD  BOURG,  A.,  Huysmans  intime.  Lettres  et  souvenirs.  Paris,  Libr.  des 
SaintSrPeres.  1  fr. 

DUCROS,  L.,  J.  J.  Rousseau.     Paris,  Fontemoing.     10  fr. 

F^NELON,  F.  DE  S.,  Lettre  a  1'Acad^mie,  conforme  a  Pedition  de  1716.  Introd. 
et  notes  par  A.  Cahen.  4e  e"d.  Paris,  Hachette.  1  fr.  50. 

GRIBBLE,  F.,  Rousseau  and  the  Women  he  Loved.    London,  E.  Nash.    15*.  net. 

'••  |   HAMEL,  A.  G.  VAN,  -Het  letterkundig  leven  in  Frankrijk.     Studien  en  schetsen. 
ive  serie.     Amsterdam,  P.  N.  van  Kampen.     2  fl.  75. 

HODGSON,  G.,  Studies  in  French  Education  from  Rabelais  to  Rousseau.  Cam- 
bridge, University  Press.  3s.  6d.  net. 


280  New  Publications 

LANGLOIS,  E.,  Nouvelles  frangaises  inedites  du  xve  siecle.     Paris,  Champion. 

5fr. 
LEMAITRE,  J.,  J.  J.  Rousseau.     Translated  by  J.  Mairet.    London,  Heinemann. 

10*. 

LitteYature  orale  et  traditions  du  Nivernais,  chants  et  chansons  populaires 
recueillis  par  A.  Millieu.  Paris,  Leroux.  15  fr. 

MAUPASSANT,  G.  DE,  Des  Vers.  Lettres  de  Mme  Laure  de  Maupassant  a 
G.  Flaubert,  poesies  inedites.  Paris,  Conard.  5  fr. 

MONTAIGNE,  M.  DE.  Gesammelte  Schriften.  Historisch-kritische  Ausgabe. 
tibertragung  von  J.  J.  Bode,  herausg.  von  0.  Flake  und  W.  Weigand.  n. 
Munich,  G.  Muller.  5  M. 

MUSSET,  A.  DE,  CEuvres  completes.  Ed.  par  E.  Bire\  Tome  ix.  Melanges  de 
litterature  et  de  critique.  Paris,  Gamier  freres.  3  fr.  50. 

MUSSET,  A.  DE,  CEuvres.     Nouvelles.     Paris,  Lemerre.     3  fr.  50. 

PASCAL,  B.,  Thoughts.  Selected  and  translated  by  M.  Kaufinann.  Cambridge, 
University  Press.  Is.  6d.  net. 

PINVERT,  L.,  Sur  Me'rime'e.     Paris,  Leclerc.     10  fr. 

POPP,  M.,  Jules  Verne  und  sein  Werk.     Vienna,  Hartleben.     6  Kr. 

REYNIER,  G.,  Le  Roman  sentimental  avant  1'Astree.     Paris,  Colin.     5  fr. 

SCHIFF,  M.,  Editions  et  traductions  italiennes  des  ceuvres  de  J.  J.  Rousseau. 
Paris,  Champion.  2  fr.  50. 

SOURIAN,  M.,  Nepomucene  Lemercier  et  ses  correspondants.  Paris,  Vuibert  et 
Nony.  3  fr.  50. 

STROWSKI,  F.,  Pascal  et  son  temps,     in.     Paris,  Plon-Nourrit.     3  fr.  50. 
SULLY-PRUDHOMME,  CEuvres  en  prose.     Paris,  Lemerre.     7  fr.  50. 

TILLEY,  A.,  From  Montaigne  to  Moliere ;  or  the  Preparation  for  the  Classical 
Age  of  French  Literature.  London,  Murray.  5s.  net. 

VILLEY,  P.,  Les  Sources  italiennes  de  la  '  DeSense  et  illustration  de  la  langue 
francaise '  de  Joachim  du  Bellay.  Paris,  Champion.  5  fr. 


GERMANIC  LANGUAGES. 

FRANTZEN,  J.  J.  A.  A.,  Over  den  ontwikkelingsgang  der  erotische  lyriek  bij  de 
Germaansche  volken.  Rede.  Leyden,  A.  H.  Adriani.  60  c. 

GRAN,  G.,  Quellen  und  Verwandtschaften  der  alteren  germanischen  Darstel- 
lungen  des  jiingsten  Gerichtes.  (Studien  zur  englischen  Philologie,  xxxi.) 
Halle,  Niemeyer.  10  M. 

HOOG,  W.  DE,  Franciscus  Junius  als  grondlegger  der  Studie  van  het  Gotisch  en 
Angel-Saksisch.  2e  druk.  Dordrecht,  J.  P.  Revers.  60  c. 

Jahresbericht  Uber  die  Erscheinungen  auf  dem  Gebiete  der  germanischen 
Philologie.  Herausg.  von  der  Gesellschaft  fur  deutsche  Philologie  in 
Berlin,  xxvin  (1906).  Leipzig,  Reisland.  10  M. 

Scandinavian. 

BRANDES,  G.,  Levned.  ni.  Snevringer  og  Horizonter.  Copenhagen,  Gylden- 
dal.  6  kr.  50. 

Brennu-Njalssaga  (Njala).  Herausg.  von  F.  J6nsson.  (Altnordische  Saga- 
Bibliothek,  xin.)  Halle,  Niemeyer.  12  M. 


New  Publications  281 

Edda,  The  Elder  or  Poetic.  Part  i.  Mythological  Poems.  Edited  and 
transl.  by  0.  Bray.  London,  Nutt.  15s.  net. 

FALK,  H.  S.  und  A.  TORP,  Norwegisch-danisches  etymologisches  Worterbuch. 
Bearbeitet  von  H.  Davidsen.  5.-7.  Lieferung.  Heidelberg,  Winter.  4  M.  50. 

H^EGSTAD,  M.,  Norsk  maallsera  eller  grammatik  i  landsmaalet.  7.  utg.  Bergen, 
Nygaard.  50  o. 

HEDSLER,  A.,  Die  gelehrte  Urgeschichte  im  altislandischen  Sclmfttum  (Aus 
Abhandlungen  der  preuss.  Akad.  der  Wissensch.).  Berlin,  Reimer.  4  M. 

HOLBERG,  L.,  Erasmus  Montanus.  Jeppe  fra  Bjerget.  (F.  L.  Liebenbergs 
Text-revision.)  Copenhagen,  Gad.  Each  25  6. 

MOLBECH,  C.  og  hans  Son  C.  K.  F.  MOLBECH.  En  Brevveksling.  Udg.  af 
0.  C.  Molbech.  Copenhagen,  Gyldendal.  5  kr.  50. 

MilNZ,  B.,  Ibsen  als  Erzieher.     Leipzig,  Xenien-Verlag.     2  M. 
RONNING,  F.,  N.  F.  S.  Grundtvig,  n,  i.     Copenhagen,  Schonberg.     3  kr. 

SCHMITT,  E.  H.,  Ibsen  als  Prophet.  Grundgedanken  zu  einer  neuen  Asthetik. 
Leipzig,  Eckardt.  6  M. 

STRINDBERG,  A.,  Werke.  Deutsche  Gesamtausgabe.  vi.  Abt.,  5.  Bd.  Ein 
Blaubuch.  Die  Synthese  meines  Lebens,  n.  Munich,  G.  Miiller.  5  M.  50. 

English. 

(a)  General  (incl.  Language). 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  Edited  by  L.  Stephen  and  S.  Lee.  Vols. 
vn- ix.  (Re-issue.)  London,  Smith,  Elder.  Each  21s.  net. 

HAEKMANN,  G.,  KUrzung  langer  Tonvokale  vor  einfachen  auslautenden  Kon- 
sonariten  in  einsilbigen  Wortern  im  Alt-,  Mittel-  und  Neuenglischen. 
(Studien  zur  englischen  Philologie,  x.).  Halle,  Niemeyer.  6  M.  50. 

MACPHERSON,  W.,  Principles  and  Methods  in  the  Study  of  English  Literature. 
Cambridge,  University  Press.  2s.  net. 

PETRI,  A.,  Ubersicht  iiber  die  irn  Jahre  1902  auf  dem  Gebiete  der  englischen 
Philologie  erschienenen  Biicher,  Schrifteu  und  Aufsatze.  (Anglia,  xxvii.) 
Halle,  Niemeyer.  4  M. 

(b)  Old  and  Middle  English. 

CHAUCER,  G.,  The  Clerkes  Tale  and  the  Squieres  Tale.  Ed.  by  L.  Winstanley. 
Cambridge,  University  Press.  2s.  60?. 

Early  English  Romances  in  Verse.  Done  into  Modern  English  by  E.  Rickert. 
London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  5s.  net. 

FORSTER,  M.,  Beowulf-Materialien.    2.  Aufl.    Brunswick,  Westermann.     60  pf. 

Pearl,  The.  A  modern  version  in  the  metre  of  the  original.  By  S.  Jewett. 
New  York,  T.  Y.  Crowell.  1  dol.  net. 

SWEET,  H.,  An  Anglo-Saxon  Reader.     8th  ed.     London,  Frowde.     9s.  60?. 

(c)  Modern  English.- 

BAGEHOT,  W.,  Estimations  in  Criticism.     Vol.  I.     Poets  and  Poetry.     London, 

Melrose.     3s.  60?.  net. 
BAYLEY,  H.,  The  Shakespeare  Symphony.     An  Introduction  to  the  Ethics  of 

the  Elizabethan  Drama.    New  ed.    London,  Chapman  and  Hall.     7s.  6d.  net. 

CANNING,  A.  S.  G.,  Shakespeare  Studied  in  Three  Plays.  London,  F.  Unwin. 
7s.  6d.  net. 


282  New  Publications 

COULTON,  G.  G.,  Chaucer  and  his  England.     London,  Methuen.     10s.  60?.  net. 

COURTNEY,  W.  P.,  The  Secrets  of  our  National  Literature.  London,  Constable. 
7s.  60?.  net. 

CRABBE,  G.,  Poetical  Works.  Edited  by  A.  J,  and  K.  M.  Carlyle.  (Oxford 
Edition.)  London,  Frowde.  3s. 

CRAIG,  R.  S.,  The  Making  of  Carlyle.     London,  Nash.     10s.  60?.  net. 

FOSTER,  J.,  A  Shakespeare  Word-Book,  being  a  Glossary  of  archaic  forms  and 
varied  usages  of  words  employed  by  Shakespeare.  London,  Routledge. 
7s.  Gd.  net. 

HAMMOND,  E.  P.,  Chaucer.  A  Bibliographical  Manual.  New  York  and  London, 
Macmillan.  12s.  Gd.  net. 

HANCOCK,  A.  E.,  Jphn  Keats.  A  Literary  Biography.  Boston,  Houghton, 
Mifflin.  2  dol.  net. 

KABEL,  P.,  Die  Sage  von  Heinrich  V  bis  zu  Shakespeare.  (Palaestra,  LXIX.) 
Berlin,  Mayer  und  Mtiller.  4  M. 

LESCHTSCH,  A.,  Richard  III.  Eine  Charakterstudie.  (Neue  Shakespeare- 
Biihne,  v.)  Berlin,  H.  PaeteL  1  M. 

LIENEMANN,  K.,  Die  Belesenheit  von  W.  Wordsworth.  Berlin,  Mayer  und 
Miiller.  4  M. 

LUBLINSKI,  S.,  Shakespeares  Problem  im  Hamlet.   Leipzig,  Xenien-Verlag.   2  M. 

MULLER,  P.,  Die  Sprache  der  Aberdeener  Urkunden  des  16.  Jahrhunderts. 
Diss.  Berlin,  Mayer  und  Muller.  2  M.  80. 

POE,  E.  A.,  Complete  Poems.  With  Introduction  by  C.  F.  Richardson.  London, 
Putnam.  7s.  Gd.  net. 

POSCHER,  R.,  Andrew  Marvells  Poetische  Werke.  (Wiener  Beitrage  zur 
englischen  Philologie,  xxvm.)  Vienna,  W.  Braumuller.  5  M. 

ROSSETTI,  C.  G.,  Family  Letters.  With  some  supplementary  Letters  and 
Appendices.  Edited  by  W.  M.  Rossetti.  London,  Brown.  15s.  net. 

SAINTSBURY,  G.,  A  History  of  English  Prosody.  From  the  Twelfth  Century  to 
the  Present  Day.  II.  Shakespeare  to  Crabbe.  London,  Macmillan. 
15s.  net. 

SCHUCKING,  L.  L.,  Shakespeare  im  literarischen  Urteil  seiner  Zeit.  Heidelberg, 
Winter.  5  M. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  As  You  Like  It.  Edited  by  F.  J.  Furnivall.  Old  Spelling 
Edition.  London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  2s.  Gd.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  The  Tragedy  of  Richard  III.  Edited  by  H.  H.  Furuess. 
(Variorum  Edition,  xvi.)  Philadelphia,  Lippincott.  4  dpi.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  Shakespeare  Proverbs,  collected  by  Mary  C.  Clarke.  Edited 
by  W.  J.  Rolfe.  New  York,  Putnam.  1  dol.  50  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  in  deutscher  Ausgabe.  Herausg.  und  zum  Teil  neu  uber- 
setzt  von  F.  Gundolf.  I.  Berlin,  Bondi.  6  M. 

SIDGWICK,  F.,  Legendary  Ballads.  Edited  with  an  Introduction.  London, 
Chatto  and  Windus.  6s.  net. 

SWIFT,  J.,  The  Battle  of  the  Books.  Edited  by  A.  Guthkelch.  (King's  Classics.) 
London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  Is.  Gd.  net. 

SWIFT,  J.,  Works.  Vol.  xn.  Edited  by  Temple  Scott.  (Bohn's  Library.) 
London,  Bell.  3s.  60?. 


New  Publications  283 

SWINBURNE,  A.  C.,  The  Age  of  Shakespeare.     London,  Chatto  and  Windus. 
6s.  net. 

TENNYSON,  A.,  LORD,  Becket,  and  other  Plays.     London,  Macmillan.     4s.  net. 

THACKERAY,   W.  M.,  Works.     Vols.  xm-xvir.     (Oxford  Edition.)     London, 
Frowde.     Each  2s. 

THOMSON,  J.,  The  Seasons.     Critical  Edition  by  O.  Zippel.     (Palsestra,  LXVI.) 
Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller.     4  M. 

TREVELYAN,  G.  0.,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Lord  Macaulay.     New  Edition. 
London,  Longmans.     3s.  6d. 

VOGT,  R.,  Das  Adjektiv  bei  Ch.  Marlowe.     Diss.     Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller. 

1  M.  50. 

WATT,  L.  M.,  Attic  and  Elizabethan  Tragedy.     London,  Dent.    7s.  6d.  net. 

German. 

(a)     General  (incl.  Language}. 

BARTELS,  A.,   Handbuch   zur  Geschichte  der  deutschen   Literatur.     2.  Aufl. 
Leipzig,  Avenarius.     6  M. 

GRIMM,  J.  und  W.,  Deutsches  Worterbuch,  x,  ii,  6.  Lieferung.     Leipzig,  Hirzel. 

2  M. 

SCHROEDER,  0.,  Vom  papiernen  Stil.     7.  Aufl.     Leipzig,  Teubner.     2  M.  40. 

SITTENBERGER,  H.,  Einfiihrung  in  die  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Literatur  mit 
besonderer  Beriicksichtigung  der  neueren  Zeit.     Vienna,  Deuticke.     4  Kr. 

TSCHINKEL,  H.,  Grammatik  der  Gotscheer  Mundart.     Halle,  Niemeyer.     8  M. 

VIETOR,  W.,   Deutsches   Ausspracheworterbuch.     I.  Heft.     Leipzig,   Reisland. 
1  M.  20. 

WEIGAND,  F.  L.  K.,  Deutsches  Worterbuch.     5.  Aufl.  von  H.  Hirt.     4.  Lie- 
ferung.    Giessen,  Topelmann.     1  M.  60. 

r    (6)     Old  and  Middle  High  German. 

HAAKH,   E.,   Die  Naturbetrachtung  bei  den   mittelhochdeutschen   Lyrikern. 
(Teutonia,  ix.)     Leipzig,  Avenarius.     2  M. 

Helwigs  Mare  vom  heiligen  Kreuz,  nach  der  einzigen  Handschrift  herausg.  von 
P.  Heymann.     (Palaestra,  LXXV.)     Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller.     5  M.  50. 

KAMP,  H.,  Unser  Nibelungenlied  in  metrischer  Ubersetzung.     Erklarungsaus- 
gabe.     Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller.     9  M. 

LEXER,  M.,  Mittelhochdeutsches  Taschenworterbuch.    9.  Aufl.    Leipzig,  Hirzel. 
5  M. 

Reinhart  Fuchs.    Herausg.  von  K.  Reissenberger.    2.  Aufl.    (Altdeutsche  Text- 
bibliothek,  vn.)     Halle,  Niemeyer.     1  M.  40. 

(c)     Modern  German. . 

ALTMAN,  G.,  H.  Laubes  Prinzip  der  Theaterleitung.     (Schriften   der  literar- 
historischen  Gesellschaft  Bonn,  v.)     Dortmund,  Ruhfus.     2  M. 

BECKMANN,  K.,  H.  Lindenborn,  der  kolnische  Diogenes.    (Beitrage  zur  Literatur- 
geschichte  des  Rheinlandes,  i.)     Bonn,  Hanstein.     6  M. 

BERGER,   K.,   Schiller.     Sein   Leben  und  seine  Werke.     n.     Munich,  C.  H. 
Beck.     7  M. 


284  New  Publications 

BLOEDAU,  C.  A.  VON,  Grimmelshausens  Simplicissimus  und  seine  Vorganger. 
Beitrage  zur  Eomantechnik  des  17.  Jahrhunderts.  (Palaestra,  LIV.)  Berlin, 
Mayer  und  Miiller.  4  M. 

BRINCKMAN,  J.,  Hochdeutscher  Nachlass.  Herausg.  von  A.  Romer.  2  vols. 
Berlin,  Siifferott.  7  M. 

CHAMBERLAIN,  H.  S.,  Das  Drama  Kichard  Wagners.  Eine  Anregung.  Leipzig, 
Breitkopf  und  Hartel.  3  M. 

ECKERMANN,  J.  P.,  Gesprache  mit  Goethe.  8.  Aufl.  Herausg.  von  H.  H. 
Houben.  Leipzig,  Brockhaus.  8  M. 

EICHENDORFF,  J.  VON,  Samtliche  Werke.  Historisch-kritische  Ausgabe. 
Herausgegeben  von  W.  Kosch  und  A.  Sauer.  xi.  Tagebiicher.  Regens- 
burg,  Happel.  2  M.  50. 

EICHENTOPF,  H.,  Th.  Storms  Erzahlungskunst  in  ihrer  Entwickelung.  (Beitrage 
zur  deutschen  Literaturwissenschaft,  xi.)  Marburg,  Elwert.  1  M.  60. 

ENGEL-MITSCHERLICH,  H.,  Hebbel  als  Dichter  der  Frau.  Dresden,  Baensch. 
2M. 

ERDMANN,  J.,  Eichendorffs  historische  Trauerspiele.  Eine  Studie.  Halle, 
Niemeyer.  3  M. 

FORSTER,  B.,  Goethes  naturwissenschaftliche  Philosophic  und  Weltanschauung. 
Annaberg,  Graser.  2  M.  80. 

FRANZ,  A.,  Johann  Klaj.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  deutschen  Literaturgeschichte  des 
17.  Jahrhunderts.  (Beitrage  zur  deutschen  Literaturwissenschaft,  vi.) 
Marburg,  Elwert.  6  M.  40. 

GEIGER,  L.  Goethe  und  die  Seinen.  Quellenmassige  Darstellungen  iiber 
Goethes  Haus.  Leipzig,  Voigtlander.  6  M. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Aus  Goethes  Tagebiichern.  Ausgewahlt  und  eingeleitet 
von  H.  G.  Graf.  Leipzig,  Insel-Verlag.  2  M. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Briefwechsel  mit  Marianne  von  Willemer.  Herausg.  von 
Ph.  Stein.  Leipzig,  Insel-Verlag.  4  M. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Fanst.  2e  partie.  Trad,  en  vers  de  S.  Paquelin.  Paris, 
Lemerre.  5  fr. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Spriiche  in  Reimen,  Zahme  Xenien  und  Invektiven. 
Herausg.  von  M.  Hecker.  Leipzig,  Insel-Verlag.  2  M. 

HASKELL,  J.,  Bayard  Taylor's  Translation  of  Goethe's  Faust.  New  York, 
Univ.  of  Columbia  Press.  1  dol.  net. 

HEINRICHS,  K.,  Studien  liber  die  Nanaengebung  im  Deutschen  seit  dem  Anfange 
des  16.  Jahrhunderts.  (Quellen  und  Forschungen,  xiv.)  Strassburg, 
Trubner.  14  M. 

HELLMANN,  H.,  H.  von  Kleist.  Das  Problem  seines  Lebens  und  seiner  Dich- 
tung.  Heidelberg,  Winter.  80  pf. 

HOEBER,  K.,  Beitrage  zur  Kenntnis  des  Sprachgebrauchs  im  Volkslied  des  xiv. 
und  xv.  Jahrhunderts.  (Acta  Germanica,  vn,  i.)  Berlin,  Mayer  und 
Muller.  4  M. 

HUMBOLDT,  W.  uud  C.  VON,  in  ihren  Briefen.  Herausg.  von  Anna  von  Sydow. 
in.  Band.  Berlin,  Mittler.  9  M. 

HDMBOLDT,  W.  VON  und  A.  W.  SCHLEGEL,  Briefwechsel.  Herausg.  von  A. 
Leitzmann.  Halle,  Niemeyer.  8  M. 

JAHN,  K.,  Goethes  Dichtung  und  Wahrheit.     Halle,  Niemeyer.     7  M. 


New  Publications  285 

KAPP,  J.,  F.  Wedekind.  Seine  Eigenart  und  seine  Werke.  Berlin,  Barsdorff. 
2  M.  70. 

KARSEN,  F.,  H.  Steffens  Eomane.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  des  historischen 
Romans.  (Breslauer  Beitrage  zur  Literaturgeschichte,  vi.)  Leipzig,  Quelle 
und  Meyer.  4  M.  60. 

KAULITZ-NIEDECK,  R.,  Goethe  und  Jerusalem.     Giessen,  Munchow.     3  M.  50. 

KLEIST,  H.  VON,  Samtliche  Werke  und  Briefe.  Herausg.  von  W.  Herzog.  i. 
Leipzig,  Insel-Verlag.  4  M.  50. 

KLOB,  K.  M.,  Schubart.  Ein  deutsches  Dichter-  und  Kulturbild.  Ulm,  Kerler. 
4M. 

KRAUSS,  R.,  Das  Stuttgarter  Theater  von  den  altesten  Zeiten  bis  zur  Gegen- 
wart.  Stuttgart,  Metzler.-  8  M.  40. 

KRUMM,  J.,  Die  Tragodie  Hebbels.  (Hebbel-Forschungen,  in.)  Berlin,  Behr. 
2  M.  50. 

KUMMER,  F.,  Deutsche  Literaturgeschichte  des  19.  Jahrhunderts.  Dresden, 
Reissner.  10  M. 

KYRIELEIS,  R.,  M.  A.  von  Thiimmels  'Reise  in  die  mittaglichen  Provinzen  von 
Frankreich.'  (Beitrage  zur  deutschen  Literaturwissenschaft,  ix.)  Marburg, 
Elwert.  2  M.  80. 

LEDERBOGEN,  F.,  F.  Schlegels  Geschichtsphilosophie.     Leipzig,  Diirr.     4  M. 

LONGO,  T.,  L.  Uhland,  con  speciale  riguardo  all'  Italia.  Florence,  Seeber. 
4L. 

MEYER,  C.  F.,  Briefe,  nebst  seinen  Recensionen  uud  Aufsatzen.  Herausg.  von 
A.  Frey.  Leipzig,  Haessel.  16  M. 

MUTHESIOS,  K.,  Goethe  und  Pestalozzi.     Leipzig,  Diirr.     4  M.  50. 
NIETZSCHE,  F.,  Gesammelte  Briefe.     iv.     Leipzig,  Insel-Verlag.     9  M. 

PINEAU,  L.,  L'evolution  du  roman  en  Allemagne  au  xixe  siecle.  Paris, 
Hachette.  3  fr.  50. 

RAIMUND,  F.,  Ausgewahlte  Werke.  Herausg.  von  0.  Rommel,  i.  (Deutsch- 
osterreichische  Klassiker-Bibliothek,  iv.)  Teschen,  Prochaska.  1  Kr.  20. 

REICH,  E.,  F.  Grillparzers  Dramen.  15  Vorlesungen.  3.  Aufl.  Dresden, 
Pierson,  3  M. 

REICHEL,  E.,  Gottsched.     i.  Band.     Berlin,  Gottsched-Verlag.     8  M.  50. 

RICHTER,  J.  P.  F.,  Werke.  Herausg.  von  R.  Wustmann.  4  Bande.  Leipzig, 
Bibl.  Inst.  8  M. 

SCHAUERHAMMER,  A.,  Mundart  und  Heimat  Kaspar  Scheits,  auf  Grund  seiner 
Reimkunst  untersucht.  (Hermaea,  vi.)  Halle,  Niemeyer.  6  M. 

SCHEDNERT,  A.,  Der  junge  Hebbel.  Weltanschauung  und  friiheste  Jugend- 
werke.  (Beitrage  zur  Asthetik,  xn.)  Hamburg,  Voss.  12  M. 

SCHILLER,  J.  F.  VON.  Schillers  Dramaturgic.  Drama  und  Biihne  betreffende 
Schriften  gesammelt  und  ausgewahlt  von  0.  Falkenberg.  (Deutsche 
Dramaturgic,  n.)  Munich,  G.  Miiller.  5  M. 

SCHILLER,  J.  F.  VON.  Schiller  und  Lotte.  Ein  Briefwechsel.  Herausg.  von  A. 
von  Gleichen-Russwurm.  2  vols.  Jena,  Diederichs.  5  M. 

SIEBERT,  W.,  H.  Heines  Beziehungen  zu  E.  T.  A.  Hoftmann.  (Beitrage  zur 
deutschen  Literaturwissenschaft,  vi.)  Marburg,  Elwert.  6  M.  40. 

SONNTAG,  A.,  H.  Lingg  als  Lyriker.     Munich,  Lindauer.     2  M. 


286  New  Publications 

STAHL,  S.,  Die  Entwicklung  der  Affekte  in  der  Lyrik  der  Freiheitskriege. 
Leipzig,  G.  Fock  3  M.  50. 

STEFFENS,  H.,  Lebenserinnerungen  aus  dem  Kreis  der  Rotnantik.  In  Auswahl 
herausg.  von  F.  Gundelfinger.  Jena,  Diederichs.  6  M. 

TRIELOFF,  0.  P.,  Die  Entstehung  der  Rezensionen  in  den  Frankfurter  Gelehrten- 
Anzeigen  vom  Jahre  1772.  (Miinstersche  Beitrage  zur  neueren  Literatur- 
gescbichte,  vn.)  Miinster,  Schoningh.  2  M.  80. 

Voss,  J.  H.,  Homers  Ilias  in  deutscher  Ubersetzung.  Herausg.  von  H.  Feigl. 
Vienna,  Konegen.  12  Kr.  50. 

WALZEL,  O.  F.,  Deutsche  Romantik.  Eine  Skizze.  (Aus  Natur  und  Geistes- 
welt,  232.)  Leipzig,  Teubuer.  1  M. 

WINTERFELD,  A.  VON,  Friedrich  Hebbel.  Sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke. 
Dresden,  Pierson.  5  M. 


PERIODICAL   LITERATURE. 

LA  CRITICA,  vi,  5  (September  20,  1908).  B.  Croce,  L'  intuizione  pura  e  il  carattere 
lirico  dell'  arte.  B.  Croce,  Aggiunte  agli  Appunti  bibliografici  intorno  agli 
scrittori  italiani,  dei  quali  si  e  discorso  nelle  'Note'  inserite  nelle  prime  cinque 
annate  della  'Critica'  (cont.).  G.  Gentile,  La  filosofia  in  Italia  dopo  il  1850. 
in.  I  positivisti.  2.  Pasquale  Villari.  vi,  6  (November  20, 1908).  B.  Croce, 
Note  sulla  letteratura  italiana  nella  seconda  rueta  del  sec.  xix.  xxvii. 
Alberto  Cantoni.  B.  Croce,  Aggiunte  agli  Appunti  bibliografici  etc.  (cont.  e 
fine).  G.  Gentile,  La  filosofia  in  Italia  dopo  il  1850.  in.  I  positivisti. 
3.  Aristide  Gabelli. 

MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES,  xxni,  7  (November,  1908).  D.  S.  Blondheim,  A  Note 
on  the  Sources  of  Marie  de  France.  K.  Campbell,  The  Source  of  the  Story 
'Sapientes'  in  'The  Seven  Sages  of  Rome.'  C.  W.  Prettyman,  'Clam,'  'Stock- 
fisch'  and  '  Pickelharing.'  L.  Foulet,  Thomas  and  Marie  in  their  Relation  to 
the  '  Contours.'  R.  S.  Duane,  An  Error  in  '  Balaustion's  Adventure.'  C.  H. 
Handschin,  Zu  Tells  Monolog.  J.  A.  Walz,  'Einen  Hasen  laufen  lassen,'  in 
Goethe's  'Dichtung  und  Wahrheit.'  H.  N.  MacCracken,  Notes  suggested  by  a 
Chaucer  Codex. 

MODERN  PHILOLOGY,  vi,  2  (October,  1908).  P.  S.  Allen,  Mediaeval  Latin  Lyrics,  in. 
E.  B.  Reed,  Two  Notes  on  Addison.  R.  E.  Neil  Dodge,  The  Well  of  Life  and 
the  Tree  of  Life.  A.  S.  Cook,  'Pearl,'  212  ff.  K.  Young,  A  Contribution  to  the 
History  of  Liturgical  Drama  at  Rouen.  C.  Goettsch,  Ablaut- Relations  in  the 
Weak  Verb  in  Gothic,  Old  High  German,  and  Middle  High  German,  n. 
C.  R.  Baskervill,  The  Sources  of  Jonson's  'Masque  of  Christmas'  and  'Love's 
Welcome  at  Welbeck.' 

PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  MODERN  LANGUAGE  ASSOCIATION  OF  AMERICA,  xxin,  3 
(September,  1908).  W.  M.  Hart,  The  Fabliau  and  Popular  Literature.  J.  M. 
Burnharn,  A  Study  of  Thomas  of  Erceldoune.  W.  E.  Mead,  Italy  in  English 
Poetry.  M.  A.  Potter,  'Ami  et  Amile.'  H.  N.  MacCracken,  A  Source  of 
'  Mundus  et  Infans.'  G.  H.  MacKnight,  The  Middle  English  '  Vox  and  Wolf.' 
C.  W.  Hodell,  A  Literary  Mosaic.  W.  G.  Howard,  Christian  Wernicke,  a 
Predecessor  of  Lessing.  B.  Cerf,  A  Classification  of  the  Manuscripts  of 
'  Ogier  le  Danois.' 


Periodical  Literature  287 

STUDIEN  ZUR  VERGLEICHENDEN  LITERATURGESCHICHTE,  vm,  4.  M.  Doll,  Benutzung 
der  Antike  in  Wielands  'Moralischen  Briefen.'  R.  M.  Werner,  Historische  und 
poetische  Chronologie  bei  Grimmelshausen,  vn,  vui  (Schluss).  R.  M.  Werner, 
Grimmelshausens  Katholizismus  (ix).  W.  Miihleisen,  Franzosische  Vorbilder 
von  J.  E.  Schlegels  'Stummer  Schbnheit.'  H.  Kallenbach,  Platens  Beziehungen 
zu  Shakespeare.  K.  Hartmanu,  Ein  verschollenes  Elegienbuch  aus  dem  xv. 
Jahrhundert.  R.  Petsch,  Magierszenen  aus  einem  lateinischen  Schuldrama. 


GIORNALE  STORICO  DELLA  LsTTERATURA  IiALiANA,  Lii,  1-2.  F.  Nicolini,  Intorno  a 
Ferdinaudo  Galiani,  a  proposito  di  una  pubblicazione  recente.  F.  Lo  Parco, 
Pietro  de'  Cerniti  bolognese,  maestro  di  diritto  di  F.  Petrarca.  G.  Nascimbeni, 
Sulla  morte  di  Trajano  Boccalini.  L.  Frati,  Autoritratti  in  versi.  B.  Ziliotto, 
'Superbo  per  ornata  prora,'  chiosa  pariniana.  E.  Bellorini,  II  Monti  professore. 
Supplemento  10-11.  E.  Solrui,  Le  fonti  dei  manoscritti  di  Leonardo  da  Vinci. 

REVISTA  DE  ARCHIVOS,  BIBLIOTECAS  Y  MUSEOS,  xn,  5-6  (May- June,  1908).  M. 
Menendez  y  Pelayo,  El  Doctor  Don  Manuel  Mila  y  Fontanals.  xir,  7-8  (July- 
August,  1908).  E.  Cotarelo  y  Mori,  Noticias  biograficas  de  Alberto  Ganasa, 
c6mico  famoso  del  siglo  xvi.  F.  Rodriguez  Marfn,  Cinco  poesfas  autobiograficas 
de  Luis  Velez  de  Guevara.  A.  del  Arco,  Apuntes  bio-bibliograficos  de  algunos 
poetas  granadinos  de  los  siglos  xvi  y  xvn  (cont.). 

REVUE  DE  PHILOLOGIE  FRANCAISE  ET  DE  LITTERATURE,  xxn,  2,  3.  Juret,  Etude 
phonetique  et  geographique  sur  la  prononciation  du  patois  de  Pierrecourt.  L. 
Sainean,  Etymologies  lyonnaises  (suite).  F.  Baldensperger,  Notes  lexicologiques. 
A.  Morize,  Voltaire  et  le  Mondain  (suite).  Fay,  Les  Gavaches.  P.  Barbier, 
fils,  Les  derives  romans  du  latin  sargus.  G.  A.  Parry,  'Les  enigmes  de  1'amour' 
.  de  Pierre  Sala.  A.  Guerinot,  Une  interpretation  errone"e  du  'Grand  Testament' 
de  Villon,  Strophe  (5.  J.  Bastin,  Le  verbe  '6tre'  conjugue  avec  lui-m§me. 
L.  Seguin,  Sur  un  mot  de  Mme.  de  Sevigne. 

REVUE  DES  LANGUES  ROMANES,  September-October,  1908.  P.  Barbier,  Noms  de 
poissons,  Notes  etymologiques  et  lexicographiques.  F.  Castets,  Les  quatres  fils 
Aymon  (suite).  L.  Lambert,  Chants  de  travail :  metiers,  cris  des  rues  (suite). 
G.  Bertoni,  'Mainte  communalment.' 

ROMANISCHE  FORSCHUNGEN,  xxv,  1.  W.  Benary,  Zwei  altfranzbsische  Friedensregister 
der  Stadt  Tournai  (1273-1280).  R.  Kiessmann,  Rostand-Studien.  O.  Borrmann, 
Das  kurze  Reimpaar  bei  Chrestien  von  Troyes  mit  besonderer  Beriicksichtigung 
des  'Wilhelm  von  England.'  xxv,  2.  F.  Werner,  Konigtum  und  Lehenswesen 
im  franzosischen  Nationalepos.  F.  Baumann,  tJber  das  Abhangigkeitsverhaltnis 
Alberto  Notas  von  Moliere  und  Goldoni.  G.  B.  Festa,  Bibliografia  delle  piu 
antiche  rime  volgari  italiane. 

ZEITSCHRIFT  FUR  FRANZOSISCHE  SPRACHE  UND  LITERATUR,  xxxm,  57.  E.  Brugger, 
L'Enserrement  Merlin.  Studien  zur  Merlinsaga,  in.  K.  Korner,  Uber  die 
Ortsangaben  in  'Amis  und  Arniles.'  J.  Priebsch,  Drei  altlothringische  Marien- 
gebete.  A.  Morize,  Samuel  Sorbiere  (1610-70).  D.  Behrens,  K.  Ettmayer, 
R.  Haberl,  Wortgeschichtliches. 

ZEITSCHRIFT  FUR  ROMANISCHE  PHILOLOGIE,  xxxn,  5.  Th.  Kalepky,  Koordinierende 
Verkuiipfung  negativer  Satze  im  Provenzalischen.  F.  Settegast,  Die  frankischen 
Elemente  der  Mlrmans  Saga.  P.  Skok,  Cantare  in  franzosischen  Ortsnamen. 
G.  Bertoni,  Sur  le  texte  de  la  'Pharsale'  de  Nicolas  de  Verone.  H.  Schneegans, 
Sizilianische  Gebete,  Beschworungen  und  Rezepte  in  griechischer  Umschrift. 
G.  Bertoni,  Revisione  del  canzoniere  francese  di  Berna.  F.  Settegast,  Uber 
einige  Eigennamen  des  Floovant  bezw.  Fioravante.  R.  Ortiz,  In  cima  del 
doppiero.  R.  Piccoli,  L'  assonanza  dei  vers  orphelins  in  'Aucassin  et  Nicolette.' 
A.  Horning,  Abruz.  anda,  sicil.  antu.  S.  Puscariu,  arod,  arco.  W.  Meyer- 
Liibke,  Zur  Verbreituiig  von  afflare. 


288 


Periodical  Literature 


ANGLIA,  xxxr,  4.  A.  L.  Stiefel,  Die  Quellen  der  englischen  Schwankbiicher  des  xvi. 
Jahrhunderts.  0.  B.  Schlutter,  Anglo-Saxonica.  E.  A.  Kock,  Das  Recht  und 
die  Pflicht  eines  Textherausgebers.  E.  Einenkel,  Nachtrage  zum  'englischen 
Indefinitivum.'  A.  Pogatscher,  Zu  'Anglia,'  xxxi,  260,  266. 

BEITRAGE  ZUR  GESCHICHTE  DER  DEUTSCHEN  SPRACHE  UND  LITERATUR,  xxxiv,  2. 
R.  C.  Boer,  Attilas  Tod  in  deutscher  Uberlieferung  und  die  Hvenische  Chronik, 
R.  Ai.  Meyer,  Hilfsverba  zweiter  Orduung.  K.  Helm,  'Von  dem  iibelenwlbe.' 
A.  Spamer,  Zur  Uberlieferung  der  PfeiffePschen  Eckeharttexte.  B.  Kahle,  Das 
Motiv  von  der  wiedergefundenen  Schwester  im  Altislandischen. 

ENGLISCHE  STUDIEN,  xxxix,  3.  M.  Forster,  Beitrage  zur  altenglischen  Wortkunde 
aus  ungedruckten  volkskundlichen  Texten.  E.  Bjorkman,  Uber  den  Namen 
der  Jiiteu.  O.  Emmerig,  Dariusbrief  und  Tennisballgeschichte.  W.  J.  Lawrence, 
The  Situation  of  the  Lords'  Room.  E.  Borst,  Pro-Infinitive. 

EUPHORION,  xv,  1-2.  A.  Wesselski,  Johann  Scanners  'Emplastrum  Cornelianum' 
und  seine  Quellen.  F.  Hahne,  Paul  Gerhardt  und  August  Buchner.  A.  Warda, 

F.  H.  Jacobi  und  der  Verfasser  der   '  Lebenslaufe.'     R.    Buchwald,   Goethes 
'Triumph  der  Empfindsamkeit.'     L.  Bobe,  Findlinge  aus  danischen    Privat- 
archiven.     A.  Leitzmann,  Zu  Lichtenbergs  Briefen.     K.  Freye,  Die  Studien  zu 
Jean  Pauls  zweitem  Eheronian.     H.  Meyer- Benfey,  Die  innere  Geschichte  des 
'Michael   Kohlhaas.'     J.  Cerny,   Jacques   Cazotte   und   E.    T.   A.    Hoffmann. 

G.  Pfetfer,  J.  G.  Regis,  'Mein  Bekeuntniss  iiber  den  zweiten  Theil  von  Gothes 
Faust'  (1835).     vn.   Erganzungsheft.     A.  Hauffen,  Neue  Fischart-Studien. 

JOURNAL  OF  ENGLISH  AND  GERMANIC  PHILOLOGY,  vn,  2  (April,  1908).  0.  E. 
Lessing,  In  Memoriam  Gustaf  E.  Karsten.  G.  E.  Karsten,  Germanic  Philology ; 
Uber  das  amerikanische  Schulwesen  ;  The  German  Universities  ;  Notes  on 
Goethe's  'Faust';  Die  Sprache  als  Ausdruck  und'  Mitteilung ;  Folklore  and 
Patriotism ;  Rede  am  Deutschen  Tag  in  Chicago,  1907 ;  Bismarck.  The  Writings 
of  G.  E.  Karsten.  E.  Mogk,  Elseus  Sophus  Bugge.  G.  T.  Flora,  Contributions 
to  the  History  of  English.  E.  C.  Wilm,  The  Kantian  Studies  of  Schiller.  F.  N. 
Scott,  A  Note  on  Walt  Whitman's  Prosody. 

REVUE  GERMANIQUE,  iv,  5  (November-December,  1908).  C.  Cestre,  'The  Church  of 
Brou'  de  Matthew  Arnold.  A.  Ravize,  Lettres  inedites  de  Freiligrath. 

ZEITSCHRIFT  FUR  DEUTSCHES  ALTERTUM  UND  DEUTSCHE  LITERATUR,  L,  1-2.  C.  von 
Kraus,  Virginal  und  Dietrichs  Ausfahrt.  H.  Schonhoff,  Reinolt  von  der  Lippe. 
G.  Baesecke,  Kudrun,  Str.  101-102,  und  Heiurich  der  Lowe.  E.  Schr5der, 
Ockstadter  Fragmente  :  I.  Aus  dem  Willehalm ;  n.  Aus  einem  geistlichen 
Gedichte  (?).  W.  Wilmanns,  Zum  Rolands-  und  Alexanderliede.  H.  Fischer, 
'Barditus.'  A.  Bomer,  Fragmente  einer  gereimten  deutschen  Boethiusuber- 
setzung.  H.  Laudan,  Die  halbe  Birne  nicht  von  Konrad  von  Wiirzburg. 
J.  Klapper,  Altdeutsche  Texte  aus  Breslau :  I.  Bruchstiicke  einer  poetischen 
Bearbeitung  des  Pseudo-Matthaus ;  n.  Biichlein  von  der  Himmelfahrt  Mariae ; 
in.  Paraphrase  der  Sequenz  'Ave  praeclara  maris  stella' ;  iv.  Minnelied; 
v.  Zum  deutscheu  Kirchenliede  ;  vi.  Leonhard  Assenheimer,  historisches 
Volkslied  vom  Jahre  1446.  A.  Wallner,  Klirnbergs  Falkenlied.  A  Wallner, 
'Eiris  sazun  idisi.'  E.  Schroder,  Zum  Armen  Heinrich.  C.  von  Kraus,  Das 
Akrostichon  in  Gottfrieds  Tristan.  E.  Schroder,  Galmei. 


VOLUME  IV  APRIL,  1909  NUMBER  3 


THE  AREOPAGUS  OF  SIDNEY  AND  SPENSER. 

ONE  of  the  famous  literary  societies  of  the  world,  according  to 
historians  of  literature  in  recent  years,  was  the  Areopagus  which  came 
into  existence  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  just  when  the  light  of  Spenser's 
genius  was  beginning  to  show  its  brilliancy.  We  are  commonly  told 
that  the  society  counted  both  him  and  Sidney  among  its  members — 
whence  its  chief  claim  to  remembrance — and  also  the  pedantic  scholar 
but  dear  friend  of  Spenser,  Gabriel  Harvey,  perhaps  its  founder ;  and 
that  it  grew  up  in  imitation  of  the  Pleiade,  the  French  literary  society 
of  a  generation  earlier.  As  the  Pleiade  sought  consciously  to  reform 
and  enrich  the  French  language  and  to  make  possible  a  nobler  French 
literature,  so  the  Areopagus  sought  to  refine  and  embellish  the  language 
and  literature  of  England.  How  definite  was  the  organization  of  either 
society  it  is  difficult,  perhaps  now  impossible,  to  determine.  This, 
though,  is  certain  of  the  Pleiade :  Ronsard  and  a  few  other  young  men 
studied,  wrote,  and  talked  for  a  well-defined  purpose  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  eminent  scholar,  Jean  Dorat.  Their  leading  spirit,  Ronsard, 
came  to  be  recognized  as  their  head.  Whether  or  not  they  had  formal 
meetings,  they  called  themselves  members  of  the  Pleiade ;  and  ever 
since  the  time  of  Claude  Binet  at  least,  friend,  pupil,  and  biographer  of 
Ronsard,  their  names  as  members  of  the  society  have  been  matter  of 
record1.  But  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  only  of  late  years  have  scholars 
mentioned  the  Areopagus  as  a  definite  literary  organization  and  tried 
to  fix  its  membership.  Contemporaries,  though  recognizing  the  value 
of  the  critical  work  of  Spenser  and  Sidney  and  their  friends,  are  dumb 
regarding  the  Areopagus.  Throughout  the  sixteenth  century  and  the 

1  '  Binet's  list  of  the  poets  who  composed  the  Pleiade,  namely,  Konsard,  Dorat,  Du 
Bellay,  Bai'f,  Belleau,  Jodelle,  and  Tyard,  has  been  generally  accepted  as  authentic,... 
there  is  no  reason  why  Binet's  list  should  not  be  accepted.'  H.  M.  Evers,  Critical  Edition 
of  the  Discours  de  la  Vie  de  Pierre  de  Ronsard  par  Claude  Binet,  Philadelphia,  1905, 
p.  135. 

M.  L.  E.  IV.  19 


290  The  Areopagus  of  Sidney  and  Spenser 

seventeenth,  literary  historians  have  nothing  to  say  about  it.  Not  until 
the  later  nineteenth  century,  three  hundred  years  after  its  existence,  do 
we  find  such  historians  referring  to  the  Areopagus  as  an  organized  club. 
In  the  last  thirty  years,  however,  nearly  all  have  agreed  that  some  sort 
of  a  club  it  was,  though  there  is  difference  of  opinion  and  great  vague- 
ness regarding  its  organization  and  membership :  so  much  so  that,  when 
we  consider  further  the  lateness  of  any  mention  of  it,  we  have  some 
right  to  question  whether  after  all  the  Areopagus,  as  described  by  these 
recent  scholars,  had  any  reality. 

If  the  Areopagus  ever  was  a  club,  with  president  and  secretary,  or 
whatever  in  Spenser's  time  would  have  been  the  equivalent  of  these 
officers,  we  should  expect  to  hear  of  it  from  some  contemporary.  We 
might  well  get  word  of  it  from  Thomas  Nash  when,  in  his  Gabriel 
Harvey's  Hunt  is  Up,  he  insists  that  'his  Gabrielship'  made  all  the 
capital  he  could  out  of  his  friendship  with  Spenser  and  Sidney1.  Or 
again,  we  might  hear  of  it  from  Ben  Jonson,  in  whose  gossipy  conversa- 
tions with  Drummond  of  Hawthornden  we  have  some  of  our  earliest 
information  about  Spenser.  Through  Drummond's  report  of  these,  we 
hear  of  the  death  of  Spenser's  youngest  child  in  the  sack  of  Kilcolman 
by  the  Irish  rebels,  and  that  other  story,  probably  apocryphal,  of 
Spenser's  '  dying  for  want  of  bread ' ;  but  Drummond  says  never 
a  word  about  the  Areopagus.  No  more  does  Fuller,  of  the  generation 
after  Jonson's,  whose  History  of  the  Worthies  of  England2  contains  so 
many  literary  anecdotes.  Nor  is  there  word  of  it  in  the  1679  edition 
of  Spenser  (printed  by  Henry  Hills  for  Jonathan  Edwin),  the  introduc- 
tion to  which  is  responsible  for  that  story  of  the  poet's  offering  Sidney, 
on  first  being  presented  to  him,  the  ninth  canto  of  the  first  book  of  the 
Faerie  Queene — the  canto  relating  the  visit  of  the  Red  Cross  Knight  to 
Despair.  As  Sidney  read  this,  according  to  the  tale,  he  bade  his 

1  'Having  found... that  no  worke  of  his,  absolute  under  hys  own  name,  would  passe,  he 
used  heretofore  to  drawe  Sir  Philip  Sydney,  Master  Spencer,  and  other  men  of  highest 
credit,  into  everie  pild  pamphlet  he  set  foorth.'     The  Works  of  Thomas  Nashe,  ed.  by 
K.  B.  McKerrow,  London,  4  vols.  1908,  in,  Have  with  You  to  Saffron  Walden,  or  Gabriel 
Harvey's  Hunt  is  up,  p.  35.     Had  Nash  known  of  any  formal  Areopagus,  he  would  have 
been  likely  to  say  here  that  Harvey,  for  his  own  glorification,  associated  himself  in  it  with 
Spenser  and  Sidney.   The  only  possible  suggestion  of  a  formal  association  between  Harvey 
and  any  of  the  supposed  members  of  the  Areopagus  is  the  following  (ibid,  m,  116) :   '  Sir 
Philip  Sidney  ...held  him  [Harvey]  in  some  good  regard,  and  so  did  most  men;  and  (it 
may  be)  some  kind  Letters  hee  writ  to  him,  to  encourage  and  animate  him  in  those  his 
hopeful  courses  he  was  entered  into.'     This  could  scarcely  be  stretched  into  a  hint  of  an 
Areopagus.     And  yet  Nash  must  have  known  of  it  if  it  existed,  for  in  his  references  to 
Harvey's  nickname,  'Angel  Gabriel,'  and  Harvey's  mention  of  the  earthquake  (cf.  this 
article,  p.  294),  he  shows  familiarity  with  those  letters  of  Spenser  and  Harvey  which  are 
supposed  to  warrant  the  assumption  that  the  Areopagus  was  a  formal  literary  body. 

2  Fuller  died  in  1661.     His  History  of  the  Worthies  was  published  the  next  year. 


HOWARD    MAYNADIER  291 

servant  give  Spenser  fifty  pounds,  which  sum  he  speedily  increased  to 
a  hundred  and  then  to  two  hundred.  The  introduction  to  this  1679 
edition  thus  shows  an  inclination  to  detail  and  anecdote  (much  to  be 
sure  erroneous),  which  makes  it  likely  that  were  any  traditions  of  the 
Areopagus  then  in  the  air,  some  echo  of  them  would  have  reached  the 
editor. 

So  it  is  with  other  editions  of  Spenser  which  I  have  examined  for 
virtually  the  next  two  centuries1,  some,  like  that  of  1679,  showing 
a  fondness  for  detail  and  anecdote  in  their  introductory  biographical 
notices;  evidently  the  editors  knew  no  rumour  of  an  Areopagus.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  scholarly  nineteenth  century,  all  that  Ellis  says 
which  bears  at  all  on  the  matter,  in  his  Specimens  of  the  Early  English 
Poets2,  is  that  the  dedication  of  the  Shepheard's  Calendar  to  Sidney 
seems  to  have  procured  Spenser  an  introduction  to  that  distinguished 
young  gentleman.  In  his  articles  on  Sidney,  on  Sidney's  devoted  friend 
Fulke  Greville,  and  on  Sir  Edward  Dyer,  the  common  friend  of  Spenser, 
Sidney,  and  Greville,  Ellis  says  nothing  which  even  hints  at  the 
Areopagus.  Though  H.  J.  Todd,  who  brought  out  an  important 
edition  of  Spenser  in  eight  vols.  in  1805,  quotes  largely  from  Spenser's 
correspondence  with  Gabriel  Harvey,  generally  supposed  nowadays  to 
have  been  a  leading  member  of  the  society,  he  says  nothing  of  the 
Areopagus.  Similarly,  literary  histories  through  all  this  period  fail  to 
hint  at  the  organization. 

At  last,  towards  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  suggestions 
of  an  organized  Areopagus  begin.  The  year  1839  saw  on  each  side  of 
the  Atlantic  a  new  edition  of  Spenser.  The  Rev.  John  Mitford,  who 
wrote  a  biographical  notice  for  the  Poetical  Works  of  Edmund  Spenser, 
published  by  Pickering  in  London,  said  that  the  poet  '  was  introduced 
by  Harvey  to  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  who  recommended  him  to  his  uncle, 
the  Earl  of  Leicester.'  He  also  quotes  Spenser's  reference  to  the 
Areopagus  in  his  letter  to  Harvey,  but  gives  no  opinion  regarding  the 
society  himself.  About  the  same  time  Philip  Masterman,  in  his  Essay  on 
the  Life  and  Writings  of  Edmund  Spenser,  introductory  to  the  edition 
published  by  Little  and  Brown,  of  Boston,  hints  at  Harvey  as  the  leader 
of  a  conscious  literary  movement.  He  adds:  'Spenser  appears... to 
have  entered  into  the  absurd  scheme,  formed  by  Harvey  and  patronized 
by  Sidney,  of  introducing  the  use  of  quantity  into  English  verse.'  But 

1  I  have  read  the  introductions  and  notes  of  all  the  editions  of  Spenser  during  this 
time  which  I  have  found  in  the  Harvard  Library. 

2  London,  1803,  3  volumes.     See  Notice  of  Spenser. 

19—2 


292  The  Areopagus  of  Sidney  and  Spenser 

Masterman  says  no  word  about  the  Areopagus  itself.  Sixteen  years 
later,  however,  in  a  new  edition  of  Spenser  by  Little  and  Brown,  we  do 
have  a  hint  that  this  was  a  society  with  some  loose  organization.  In 
the  biographical  Memoir  written  by  Professor  Child,  we  read  that  the 
'project  for  reforming  English  versification... seems  to  have  originated 
with  Harvey  and  to  have  been  taken  up  with  zeal  by  a  coterie  over 
which  Sidney  and  Dyer  presided.'  But  J.  P.  Collier,  in  his  five-volume 
edition  of  1862,  makes  no  suggestion  that  this  coterie  was  organized. 
Dean  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  in  his  Spenser,  published  in  1879, 
implies  (pp.  33, 34),  though  he  does  not  actually  say,  that  the  Areopagus 
was  a  formal  literary  body. 

Since  then  this  idea  seems  to  have  been  generally  accepted.  True, 
Dr  Grosart  in  his  ten- volume  Spenser  (London,  1882-4)  is  non-committal 
as  to  the  structure  of  the  Areopagus,  but  in  his  Poetical  Works  of 
Sidney1,  he  regards  it  as  a  body  formally  constituted.  Mrs  Humphrey 
Ward  speaks  of  Spenser,  along  with  Greville,  Dyer,  and  Sidney,  as 
'a  member  of  Harvey's  Areopagus'2.  Mr  Symonds3  believes  in  a  well- 
organized  '  academy '  whose  '  critical  tendency  was  indicated  by  the 
name  Areopagus,  given  it  perhaps  in  fun  by  Spenser.'  Mr  Fox  Bourne 
says4  that  the  Areopagus  '  was  a  sort  of  club,  composed  mainly  of 
courtiers,  who  aspired  to  be  also  men  of  letters,  apparently  with  Sidney 
as  its  president.'  Spenser  and  other  literary  men  belonged  to  it,  and 
Harvey  seems  to  have  been  '  a  corresponding  member  and  counsellor-in- 
chief.'  Mr  Bourne  thinks  that  '  Dyer  and  Greville  were  evidently  busy 
members.'  Professor  J.  B.  Fletcher,  of  Columbia  University,  accepts 
this  view,  for  he  says  in  an  article  on  The  Areopagus  and  the  Pleiade5 : 
'  What  we  know  of  the  Areopagus  is  derived  from  references  and 
allusions  to  it  in  the  Spenser-Harvey  letters  of  1579-80.  There  we 
hear  of  Dyer  and  Fulke  Greville  as  members  besides  Sidney  and 
Spenser  and  the  non-resident  Harvey.'  And  Mr  Sidney  Lee6  says 
that  in  'the  meetings  of 'the  literary  club  of  the  "Areopagus"  which 
Leicester's  friends  and  dependents  formed  at  Leicester  House,  Spenser, 
Sidney,  and  others  debated,  at  Harvey's  instance,  the  application  to 
English  poetry  of  the  classical  rules  of  metrical  quantity.'  He  says 
also  in  his  article  on  Fulke  Greville  in  the  Dictionary  of  National 

1  London,  1877,  i,  p.  Ixxv. 

2  Ward's  English  Poets,  i,  Introduction  to  Poems  by  Fulke  Greville. 
*  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  London,  1886,  p.  79. 

4  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  New  York  and  London,  1891,  p.  200. 

5  Journal  of  Germanic  Philology,  n,  1899,  p.  430. 

6  Great  Englishmen  of  the  Sixteenth  Century,  New  York,  1904,  p.  166. 


HOWARD    MAYNADIER  293 

Biography  (1890)  that  Greville,  Sidney,  and  Dyer  were  members  of  the 
literary  society  formed  by  Gabriel  Harvey  and  called  by  him  the 
Areopagus.  And  in  his  article  on  Sidney  (1897),  he  says  that  they 
seem  often  to  have  engaged  in  '  formal  literary  debate.'  Other  opinions 
to  the  same  effect  might  be  quoted.  These,  however,  are  enough  to 
show  that  recent  scholars  generally  believe  the  Areopagus  to  have  been 
a  formal  literary  club  which  met  at  Leicester  House  during  1579  and 
1580,  years  when  we  know  that  Spenser  spent  a  great  deal  of  his  time 
there.  Though  there  is  doubt  regarding  the  exact  formation  of  the 
society,  the  consensus  of  opinion  is  that  Harvey  was  its  prime  mover1. 
But  living  in  Cambridge  as  he  did,  a  Fellow  of  Trinity  Hall,  he  could 
not  have  been  present  at  many  meetings  of  the  club.  He  acted  rather 
as  a  non-resident  director2.  His  most  active  associates  were  Sidney, 
Dyer,  Fulke  Greville,  and  Spenser.  Conjecture  has  included  among 
others  Spenser's  friend,  Edward  Kirke,  in  all  probability  '  E.  K.'  of  the 
Shepheard's  Calendar ;  Drant,  no  less  famous  than  Harvey  in  his  efforts 
to  apply  to  English  verse  classical  rules  of  metre ;  and  sometimes  even 
Leicester  himself. 

Now,  if  literary  commentators  and  editors  of  Spenser  up  to  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  have  nothing  to  say  of  all  this, 
whence  comes  the  information  about  the  Areopagus  which  recent 
scholars  possess  ?  It  comes,  all  agree,  from  five  letters  written  in  1579 
and  1580,  two  from  Spenser  to  Harvey  and  three  from  Harvey  to 
Spenser.  Every  mention  or  hint  of  the  society  found  in  this  corres- 
pondence it  is  worth  while  to  consider.  By  so  doing,  we  shall  be 
able  to  decide  for  ourselves,  basing  our  opinion  on  the  only  reliable 
information  extant,  how  the  Areopagus  was  made  up. 

In  these  letters  of  Spenser  and  Harvey  the  first  hint  of  a  literary 
club  is  found  in  Spenser's  letter  of  October,  15793.  He  writes : 

As  for  the  twoo  worthy  Gentlemen,  Master  Sidney  and  Master  Dyer,  they  haue 
me,  I  thanke  them,  in  some  use  of  familiarity :  of  whom,  and  to  whome,  what 
speache  passeth  for  youre  credite  and  estimation,  I  leaue  your  selfe  to  conceiue, 
hauing  alwayes  so  well  conceiued  of  my  vnfained  affection  and  zeale  towafdes  you. 
And  nowe  they  haue  proclaimed  in  their  apeiwTrayw  a  generall  surceasing  and  silence 
of  balde  Rymers,  and  also  of  the  verie  beste  to :  in  steade  whereof,  they  haue,  by 
authoritie  of  their  whole  Senate,  prescribed  certaine  Lawes  and  rules  of  Quantities 
of  English  sillables  for  English  Verse :  hauing  had  thereof  already  great  practise, 
and  drawen  mee  to  their  faction. 


1  Mr  Lee,  for  instance,  speaks  of  debates  '  at  Harvey's  instance.' 

2  Mr  Bourne  calls  Sidney  '  president '  of  the  society,  but  he  says  that  Harvey  seems  to 
have  been  '  counsellor-in-chief ' ;  and  Mrs  Ward  speaks  of  'Harvey's  Areopagus.' 

3  A.  B.  Grosart,  Works  of  Gabriel  Harvey,  3  volumes,  London,  1884,  i,  p.  7. 


294  The  Areopagus  of  Sidney  and  Spenser 

Presently  writing  further  of  the  new  kind  of  versifying,  he  says,  in 
reference  to  some  iambics  that  Harvey  has  sent  him : 

I  will  imparte  yours  to  Maister  Sidney  and  Maister  Dyer  at  my  nexte  going  to 
the  Courte.  I  praye  you,  keepe  mine  close  to  yourselfe,  or  your  verie  entire  friendes, 
Maister  Preston,  Maister  Still,  and  the  reste.  (Ibid.,  p.  9.) 

Then,  after  a  page  or  two,  come  some  Latin  hexameters  in  which 
Spenser  calls  Harvey  his  Angel  Gabriel  (Angelus  et  Gabriel),  perhaps 
a  usual  affectionate  nickname  for  him ;  then  a  polite  message  from 
Sidney;  and  then  farewell. 

Replying  to  this  later  in  the  month,  Harvey  writes,  after  some 
preliminary  would-be  witticisms : 

Your  new-founded  apeiovrrayov  I  honoure  more,  than  you  will  or  can  suppose : 
and  make  greater  accompte  of  the  two  worthy  Gentlemenne,  than  of  the  two 
hundredth  Dionisii  Areopagitae,  or  the  verye  notablest  Senatours,  that  euer  Athens 
dydde  affourde  of  that  number,  (p.  20.) 

In  the  rest  of  the  letter  he  discusses  principally  classical  versification, 
his  favourite  subject.  Speaking  of  some  experiments  of  Spenser  in 
this,  which  Harvey  finds  not  entirely  faultless,  he  says  that 

the  Errour  may  rather  proceede  of  his  Master,  M.  Drantes  Rule,  than  of  himselfe. 
(p.  23.) 

And  a  little  later  he  says  of  Drant's  Rules : 

My  selfe  neither  sawe  them,  nor  heard  of  them  before :  and  therefore  will  neither 
praise  them,  nor  dispraise  them  nowe :  but  vppon  the  suruiewe  of  them,  and  farther 
conference,  (both  which  I  desire)  you  shall  soone  heare  one  mans  opinion  too  or  fro. 
(p.  24.) 

The  next  published  letter  of  the  two  friends  is  one  from  Spenser  in 
the  following  April.  He  mentions  briefly  an  earthquake  which  had 
just  occurred,  and  then  goes  on  to  discuss  some  English  hexameters  of 
Harvey's.  Though  he  likes  them  '  so  exceeding  well '  that  he  tries  his 
pen  at  the  same  kind  of  verse,  yet  he  finds  '  hardnesse '  in  the  '  accente/ 

whyche  sometime  gapeth,  and  as  it  were  yawneth  ilfauouredly,  comming  shorte  of 
that  it  should,  and  sometime  exceeding  the  measure  of  the  Number,  as  in  Carpenter, 
the  middle  sillable  being  used  shorte  in  speache,  when  it  shall  be  read  long  in  Verse, 
seemeth  like  a  lame  Gosling  that  draweth  one  legge  after  hir:  and  Heauen  being  vsed 
shorte  as  one  sillable,  when  it  is  in  verse  stretched  out  with  a  Diastole,  is  like  a  lame 
Dogge  that  holdes  vp  one  legge.  (p.  35.) 

He  wishes  for  perfect  agreement  between  his  friends  and  himself  in 
town,  and  Harvey  in  Cambridge,  regarding  the  rules  for  new  schemes 
of  versifying. 

I  would  hartily  wish,  you  would  either  send  me  the  Rules  and  Precepts  of  Arte, 
which  you  obserue  in  Quantities,  or  else  followe  mine,  that  M.  Philip  Sidney  gaue 
me,  being  the  very  same  which  M.  Drant  deuised,  but  enlarged  with  M.  Sidneys  own 


HOWARD    MAYNADIER  295 

iudgement,  and  augmented  with  my  Observations,  that  we  might  both  accorde  and 
agree  in  one :  leaste  we  ouerthrowe  one  an  other,  and  be  ouerthrown  of  the  rest. 
Truste  me,  you  will  hardly  beleeue  what  greate  good  liking  and  estimation  Maister 
Dyer  had  of  your  Satyricall  Verses,  and  I,  since  the  viewe  thereof,  hauing  before  of 
my  selfe  had  speciall  liking  of  Englishe  Versifying,  am  euen  nowe  aboute  to  giue  you 
some  token,  what,  and  howe  well  therein  I  am  able  to  doe.  (p.  36.) 

Harvey's  two  subsequent  letters,  both  in  reply  to  this  of  Spenser's, 
are  long  and  verbose.  The  first  is  chiefly  concerned  with  the  earth- 
quake; but  the  second  refers  to  that  part  of  Spenser's  letter  which 
deals  with  versifying. 

I  cannot  choose,  but  thanke  and  honour  the  good  Aungell,  whether  it  were 
Gabriell  or  some  other  that  put  so  good  a  notion  into  the  heads  of  those  two 
excellent  Gentlemen  M.  Sidney,  and  M.  Dyer,  the  two  very  Diamondes  of  hir 
Maiesties  Courte  for  many  speciall  and  rare  qualities :  as  to  helpe  forwarde  our 
new  famous  enterprise  for  the  Exchanging  of  Barbarous  and  Balductum  Rymes 
with  Artificial  Verses :  the  one  being  in  manner  of  pure  and  fine  Goulde,  the  other 
but  counterfet  and  base  yl-fauoured  Copper,  (p.  75.) 

Then  soon  he  writes : 

I  would  gladly  be  acquainted  with  M.  Drants  Prosodye,  and  I  beseeche  you, 
commende  me  to  good  M.  Sidneys  iudgement,  and  gentle  M.  Immeritos  Obserua- 
tions.  I  hope  your  nexte  Letters,  which  I  daily  expect,  wil  bring  me  in  farther 
familiaritie  &  acquaintance  with  al  three.  Mine  owne  Rules  and  Precepts  of 
Arte,  I  beleeue  wil  fal  out  not  greatly  repugnant,  though  peraduenture  somewhat 
different,  (p.  76.) 

Still  discussing  verses,  he  speaks  of  some  possible 

delicate,  and  choyce  elegant  Poesie  of  good  M.  Sidneys,  or  M.  Dyers  (ouer  very 
Castor,  &  Pollux  for  such  and  many  greater  matters),  (p.  86.) 

The  rest  of  the  letter  contains  mostly  advice  to  Spenser  of  a  personal 
kind,  including  the  extraordinary  wish,  based  on  the  samples  of  the 
Faerie  Queene  which  Spenser  had  sent  for  Harvey's  criticism,  that  '  God 
or  some  good  Aungell '  will  put  the  younger  man  in  a  '  better  mind ' 
than  to  continue  the  poem. 

Such  is  the  correspondence  of  Spenser  and  Harvey  that  throws 
light  on  the  Areopagus.  In  all  this,  only  one  reference  points  to 
Harvey  as  director  of  the  society,  if  it  ever  existed — his  question 
whether  it  was  not  the  'Aungell  Gabriell,'  evidently  a  reference  to 
Spenser's  'Angelus  et  Gabriel,'  that  put  it  into  the  heads  of  Sidney 
and  Dyer  to  take  so  much  interest  in  reformed  versifying.  Here  is 
a  suggestion  from  Harvey  himself  that  he  was  the  leading  spirit  among 
the  young  men  who  dreamed  of  refining  English  poetry.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  when  Spenser  writes  that  he  will  impart  Harvey's  verses 
to  Sidney  and  Dyer  for  their  criticism,  he  implies  consultation  between 
these  gentlemen  and  Harvey  rather  than  direction  by  the  latter ;  and 


296  The  Areopagus  of  Sidney  and  Spenser 

when  he  writes  of  their  making  a  proclamation  in  their 
he  suggests  clearly  their  independence  of  Harvey.  So  he  does,  too, 
in  writing  about  Harvey's  '  Rules  and  Precepts  of  Arte '  and  Drant's. 
Evidently,  there  were  two  sets  of  rules  for  applying  classical  metres 
to  English  verse,  one  by  Drant  and  one  by  Harvey ;  and  Sidney  and 
Dyer  in  their  experiments  were  as  likely  to  use  one  set  as  the  other. 
Moreover,  Harvey  himself,  in  writing  of  the  '  new-founded  dpeiovTrayov ' 
and  the  '  choyce  elegant  poesie '  of  Sidney  and  Dyer,  gives  no  hint  that 
he  is  directing  them.  Indeed,  he  as  much  as  says  that  he  is  not,  when 
referring  to  their  rules  for  versification,  based  on  Drant's,  he  declares 
explicitly, '  myself  neither  saw  them,  nor  heard  of  them  before.'  Clearly, 
if  there  was  any  president  of  the  Areopagus  it  was  not  Harvey,  but 
probably  Sidney.  It  is  even  doubtful  whether  Harvey  was  one  of  the 
hypothetical  members.  If  he  was,  there  would  seem  not  to  have  been 
ideal  cooperation  between  those  who  made  up  the  club  in  applying  the 
rules  for  reformed  versification.  More  likely,  if  Harvey  influenced  the 
Areopagus,  he  did  so  only  as  a  corresponding  friend  of  Spenser. 

But  what  shows  that  the  Areopagus  ever  had  a  president  ?  In  the 
letters  of  Spenser  and  Harvey,  from  which,  we  must  remember,  we  get 
our  only  knowledge  of  the  society  except  as  recent  scholars  have 
imagined  it— in  these  there  is  no  hint  that  there  were  members  enough 
to  warrant  any  officers.  Despite  Mrs  Ward's  assertion  that  Fulke 
Greville  belonged  to  the  Areopagus ;  and  Mr  Gosse's,  that  '  almost  the 
only  reference  to  the  famous  Areopagus  includes  their  names'1  (that  is, 
Dyer's  and  Greville's) ;  and  Professor  Fletcher's,  that  '  in  the  Spenser- 
Harvey  letters... we  hear  of  Dyer  and  Fulke  Greville  as  members,'  there 
is  no  reference  whatsoever  to  Greville  as  a  member.  Indeed,  his  name 
nowhere  appears  in  the  correspondence.  This  fact  points  to  the  con- 
clusion that  Greville  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Areopagus.  We  know 
that  he  was  Sidney's  closest  friend,  and  we  have  verses  of  Sidney 
testifying  to  the  literary  intimacy  of  Greville  with  himself  and  Dyer, 
Two  Pastorals  Made  by  Sir  Philip  Sidney: 

loyne  Mates  in  mirth  with  me, 

Graunt  pleasure  to  our  meeting : 

Let  Pan  our  good  God  see, 

How  gratefull  is  our  greeting. 

loyne  hearts  and  hands,  so  let  it  be, 
Make  but  one  Minde  in  Bodies  three. 


1  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  Contemporary  Review,  L,  p.  642. 


HOWARD    MAYNADIER  297 

My  two  and  I  be  met, 
A  happy  blessed  Trinitie ; 
As  three  most  ioyntly  set, 
In  firmest  band  of  Vnitie. 
loyne  hands,  etc. 

Welcome  my  two  to  me,  E.  D.  F.  G.  P.  S. 

The  number  best  beloved, 
Within  my  heart  you  be, 
In  friendship  unremoved. 
loyne  hands,  etc. 

Now  had  this  close  friend  of  Sidney  been  associated  with  him  and  Dyer 
in  the  plans  for  new  versification  of  which  Spenser  and  Harvey  write  so 
much,  his  name,  it  would  seem,  must  have  appeared  in  their  corres- 
pondence. Since  it  does  not,  apparently  Greville  was  not  one  of 
Sidney's  and  Dyer's  '  whole  Senate '  of  reformed  versifiers. 

What  makes  probability  in  the  matter  almost  certainty  is  the 
further  fact  that  Greville  himself  nowhere  refers  to  the  club  in  his 
Life  of  Sidney.  Had  he  belonged  to  it,  he  could  hardly  have  failed  to 
mention  it.  From  the  day  the  two  boys  met  at  their  school  at 
Shrewsbury,  Greville's  devotion  to  Sidney  was  one  of  the  governing 
forces  of  his  life,  and  so  in  writing  his  memoirs  of  Sidney  he  had  two 
purposes :  to  glorify  his  friend,  who  was  also  his  hero,  and,  with 
pardonable  pride,  to  dwell  on  the  closeness  of  their  association.  Thus 
he  not  only  records  all  the  noble  acts  of  Sidney  and  all  the  golden 
opinions  of  him  expressed  by  great  statesmen,  like  William  of  Orange, 
and  great  scholars,  like  Languet ;  he  recalls  also,  with  manifest  pleasure 
and  affection,  the  school  days  when  even  as  a  child  Sidney  had  '  such 
staiedness'  of  mind,  'lovely  and  familiar  gravity,  as  carried  grace  and 
reverence  above  greater  years'1.  He  recalls,  too,  a  hundred  details  of 
their  subsequent  adventures,  whether  in  England  or  on  the  Continent, 
which  testify  to  their  mutual  affection.  For  example,  he  tells  circum- 
stantially of  the  unsuccessful  attempt  of  himself  and  Sidney,  burning 
with  the  Elizabethan  desire  for  adventure  and  exploration,  to  sail  across 
the  seas  to  the  New  World.  But  the  Queen  was  often  unwilling  to  let 
her  favourites,  in  the  number  of  whom  Sidney  and  Greville  were 
emphatically  to  be  counted,  stray  far  from  her  court;  and  so  to  the 
young  men's  request  for  permission  to  sail  with  Sir  Francis  Drake  to 
the  West  Indies,  she  refused  her  consent.  Eager  for  the  expedition, 
they  decided  to  sail,  nevertheless,  without  the  royal  permission,  Greville 
according  to  his  own  words,  having  'the  honor... to  be'  Sidney's  'loving 

1  Life  of  Sidney,  Chap.  r. 


298  The  Areopagus  of  Sidney  and  Spenser 

and  beloved  Achates'  in  the  journey1.  Their  plans  matured,  they  went 
to  Plymouth  with  Drake's  connivance,  to  embark  the  moment  the  wind 
should  be  favourable.  But  when  they  were  laid  in  bed  that  night,  Greville 
told  Sidney  that  he  feared,  from  the  expression  on  Drake's  face,  they 
should  not  be  allowed  to  make  the  voyage  after  all.  Sure  enough,  royal 
messengers  came  commanding  that  either  they  be  stayed  or  the  whole 
fleet.  By  way  of  compensation  for  Sidney's  disappointment,  Elizabeth 
soon  after  gave  him  permission  to  serve  with  Leicester  in  the  campaign 
in  the  Netherlands.  Then  came  the  fatal  wound  at  Zutphen,  and  not 
only  Greville  but  all  England  was  mourning  for  Sidney. 

This  was  in  1586.  Greville  lived  on  to  be  seventy-four  years  old, 
but  he  never  lost  his  affection  for  his  early  friend.  His  Life  of  Sidney*, 
"written  in  his  later  years,  was  a  labour  of  love ;  and  when  he  was  dead 
and  buried  his  monument  bore  the  epitaph  which  he  himself  had 
composed :  '  Fulke  Greville,  Servant  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  Councillor 
to  King  James,  Friend  to  Sir  Philip  Sidney.'  Surely  the  man  who, 
forty-two  years  after  the  death  of  his  friend,  wished  this  for  his  epitaph, 
would  not  have  neglected  to  mention  the  Areopagus  had  he  and  Sidney 
been  joint  members  of  it.  Evidently  it  testified  neither  to  their  intimacy, 
nor,  in  Greville's  estimation,  to  Sidney's  glory. 

Now  if  Greville — such  a  dear  friend  of  Sidney,  and  himself  a  poet — 
was  not  one  of  the  Areopagus,  its  membership,  we  should  say,  must  have 
been  very  limited.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  correspondence  of  Spenser 
and  Harvey  suggests  that  its  membership  was  limited  to  two,  or  at  most 
three.  The  two  were  Sidney  and  Dyer,  and  the  testimony  points  surely 
to  no  others.  The  possible  third  was  Spenser.  Harvey  was  clearly  an 
outsider. 

What,  then,  was  the  constitution  of  this  Areopagus,  this  '  whole 
Senate '  of  two,  or  at  most  three  ?  Pretty  certainly  it  was  not  a  formal 
body,  as  we  may  judge  from  Spenser's  reference  to  it :  '  Master  Sidney 
and  Master  Dyer...haue  proclaimed  in  their  dpewrrdrytp  a  generall  sur- 
ceasing and  silence  of  balde  Rymers...:  in  steade  whereof,  they  haue,  by 
authoritie  of  their  whole  Senate,  prescribed  certaine  Lawes  and  rules  of 
Quantities... for  English  Verse.'  It  looks  as  if  Spenser,  reporting  the 
scheme  of  Sidney  and  Dyer,  had  applied  the  name  of  the  great  Athenian 
tribunal  to  them  jocosely,  as  one  to-day  in  raillery  at  the  deliberation  of 

1  Life  of  Sidney,  Chap.  vn. 

2  The  title  which  Greville  intended  to  give  this  was  A  Dedication  to  Sir  Philip  Sidney. 
It  was  to  appear  with  the  complete  edition  of  his  works.     Though  Greville  died  in  1628, 
the  dedication  was  not  published  until  1652,  when  it  appeared  with  the  title  which  it  has 
borne  ever  since,  The  Life  of  the  Renowned  Sir  Philip  Sidney. 


HOWARD    MAYNADIER  299 

two  friends  might  speak  of  a  decision  of  their  Supreme  Court.  Now 
Spenser,  though  not  conspicuously  gifted  with  humour,  as  any  one  can 
tell  who  has  read  a  canto  of  the  Faerie  Queene,  was  not  totally  without 
it.  There  are  clumsy  attempts  at  humour  in  these  very  letters  to 
Harvey,  as  when  Spenser,  poking  fun  at  some  of  Harvey's  English  verses 
in  classical  metre,  says  that  they  yawn  and  remind  him  of  a  lame  gosling ; 
and  again,  of  a  lame  dog.  Harvey,  generally  even  more  clumsy  in  his 
attempts  at  humour  than  Spenser,  is  replying  in  Spenser's  spirit  when 
he  says : 

Your  new-founded  apeiovtrayov  I  honoure  more,  than  you  will  or  can  suppose: 
and  make  greater  accompto  of  the  two  worthy  Gentlemenne,  than  of  the  two 
hundredth  Dionisii  Areopagitae,  or  the  verye  notablest  Senatours,  that  euer  Athens 
dydde  aflfburde  of  that  number. 

Apparently  the  high-sounding  name  of  Areopagus  was  only  a  joke. 

What  strengthens  the  probability  that  the  Areopagus  as  a  literary 
society  never  existed,  is  the  failure,  already  noted,  of  any  contemporary 
echo  of  its  deliberations  to  reach  us,  except  the  two  references  of 
Spenser  and  Harvey.  Yet  with  its  conjectured  membership,  it  must, 
even  as  an  informal  society,  have  been  of  importance  in  the  literary 
world.  One  would  expect  Sidney  to  make  some  reference  to  it  in  his 
Apologie  for  Poetrie,  in  which  it  is  often  assumed,  and  not  improbably, 
that  he  expressed  opinions  which  he  held  in  common  with  his  literary 
friends.  Had  he  and  they  formed  a  club  more  or  less  known,  it  would 
have  been  only  natural  for  him,  in  declaring  his  literary  creed,  to  give 
it  support  by  at  least  the  suggestion  that  his  fellow  club-members  held 
similar  opinions.  But  he  never  does.  Then  again,  it  is  singular,  if  the 
Areopagus  was  really  a  literary  society  modelled  after  the  Pleiade,  that 
it  did  not  for  convenience  Anglicize  its  name.  PUiade,  save  for  its 
origin,  is  thoroughly  French ;  but  as  Spenser  and  Harvey  write  of  their 
hypothetical  society,  instead  of  making  its  name  English,  they  keep  it 
Greek.  '  In  their  apeicoTrdyw,'  says  Spenser,  using  the  dative  case.  And 
Harvey  replying  writes,  'your  new-founded  dpeiovTrayov'  using  the 
accusative,  which  is  the  case  called  for.  The  Greek  letters  and  the 
Greek  declension  point  to  no  society  that  gave  itself  the  Anglicized 
name  Areopagus1. 

By  all  this  I  do  not  mean  that  Spenser  and  Sidney  and  the  other 

1  For  suggesting  this  significance  of  the  Greek  letters  and  declension,  I  am  indebted  to 
Mr  W.  E.  McNeil!,  a  graduate  student  at  Harvard  University,  who,  in  a  course  on  Spenser 
given  under  my  direction,  wrote  a  thesis  on  The  Areopagus  and  the  Pleiade.  Mr  McNeill's 
impression  was  that  recent  scholars  have  exaggerated  the  resemblance  between  the  French 
society  and  the  supposed  English  one  in  almost  every  way. 


300  T7ie  Areopagus  of  Sidney  and  Spenser 

young  men  who  might  have  been  members  of  an  Areopagus  never  came 
together  for  earnest  literary  discussion.  During  two  years  at  least  there 
were  chances  for  many  such  meetings.  It  was  in  the  summer  of  1578 
that  Sidney  with  his  uncle,  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  in  the  suite  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  during  one  of  her  progresses,  met  Gabriel  Harvey  at  Audley 
End,  then  the  greatest  country-place  in  Essex1.  Harvey,  a  native  of 
the  neighbouring  town  of  Saffron  Walden,  had  come  as  one  of  the 
literary  lights  of  Cambridge,  some  fifteen  miles  away,  to  make  an 
address  to  the  Queen.  In  Latin  verses  which  he  wrote  for  the  occasion, 
entitled  Gratulationes  Waldenses  and  filled  with  laudation  of  the 
sovereign,  he  spoke  of  Sidney  also  in  terms  of  highest  praise.  Perhaps 
he  had  met  Sidney  before,  for  Harvey  seems  to  have  been  already 
known  to  Leicester2.  If  so,  after  the  meeting  at  Audley  End  and  the 
complimentary  Latin  verses,  Harvey  was  probably  in  greater  favour 
with  both  Leicester  and  his  nephew.  Perhaps  that  is  why  Harvey 
seems  soon  afterwards  to  have  been  able  to  procure  a  place  for  his 
friend,  Spenser,  who  had  been  living  in  the  north  of  England,  in  the 
household  of  Elizabeth's  favourite.  Thus  the  opportunity  was  given 
at  Leicester  House  for  a  friendship  between  Spenser,  then  about 
twenty-six,  and  Sidney,  who  was  twenty-four. 

The  two  young  men,  with  the  many  literary  tastes  which  they  had 
in  common,  did  not  fail  to  improve  their  opportunity.  We  have  seen 
in  Spenser's  letters  to  Harvey  that  he  made'  use  of  the  opportunity 
likewise  to  know  Dyer,  who  was  a  few  years  older  than  Sidney.  All 
three  seem  to  have  esteemed  Harvey  and  to  have  valued  his  opinions 
on  the  classics,  because  of  his  well-known  scholarship  and  his  six  or 
seven  years  seniority  of  Spenser.  We  have  seen,  also,  in  the  letters  of 
Spenser  and  Harvey,  that  the  latter  was  in  frequent  consultation  with 
his  three  friends  in  London  about  classical  metres.  No  doubt  when  he 
came  to  town,  he  talked  with  them  at  length  on  the  subject. 

It  would  be  odd  if  sometimes  other  friends  of  the  three  young  men 
were  not  present  when  they  discussed  literary  matters.  At  such  times 
we  might  imagine  more  interesting  conversations  than  those  in  Harvey's 
company,  for  his  letters  suggest  that  there  would  have  been  difficulty 
in  getting  him  off  his  favourite  metrical  subject.  Possibly  Spenser 
introduced  his  friend  Kirke  to  Sidney  and  Dyer.  Possibly  Greville 
talked  with  them  occasionally ;  but,  as  we  have  seen,  not  often ;  other- 

!  • 

1  Cf.  Fuller's  Worthies. 

-  When  Harvey  was  presented  to  the  Queen  she  spoke  of  him  as  one  of  whom  she  had 
previously  heard  from  Leicester. 


HOWARD   MAYNADIER  301 

wise  there  would  have  been  mention  of  the  fact  in  his  Life  of  Sidney. 
Indeed,  for  the  time  being,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  letters  of  Spenser 
and  Harvey,  Dyer  was  Sidney's  closest  literary  friend,  perhaps  because 
he  reflected  Sidney's  opinions  better  than  Spenser  and  Greville,  who 
were  more  independent.  Despite  Sidney's  verses,  too,  about  the  '  happy 
blessed  Trinitie '  which  he  and  Dyer  and  Greville  made  up,  we  may, 
considering  the  weakness  of  human  nature,  wonder  if  Greville  was  not 
somewhat  jealous  of  Dyer.  Three-cornered  friendships  are  seldom 
entirely  agreeable.  It  may  be  significant  that  in  his  Life  of  Sidney, 
Greville  mentions  Dyer  but  once,  and  then  only  as  the  messenger  who 
'  stayed  him  by  a  princely  mandate '  on  one  of  the  several  occasions 
when  his  youthful  desire  for  travel  and  adventure  was  balked  by  Queen 
Elizabeth's  fondness. 

The  serious  and  enthusiastic  literary  talks  of  Spenser,  Sidney,  and 
Dyer  had  notable  results.  More  or  less  they  served  the  purpose,  indeed, 
which  the  Areopagus  would  have  served  had  it  existed.  To  them, 
probably,  the  critical  opinions  expressed  in  the  introduction  and  notes 
of  the  Shepheard's  Calendar  owed  something,  as  did  also  the  Apologie 
for  Poetrie.  The  same  talks  probably  quickened  and  helped  to  define 
the  poetical  feelings  which  found  expression  in  the  Arcadia  and  in  the 
various  poems  of  Sidney  and  Spenser.  The  Faerie  Queene,  when  still 
only  tentative  fragments  were  written,  won  so  much  praise  from  Sidney 
that  Spenser  had  little  hesitation  about  going  on  with  it1.  No  doubt, 
too,  knowing  French  literature  and  Italian,  the  young  men  discussed 
the  critical  opinions  not  only  of  classical  authors  but  also  of  recent 
continental  writers.  But  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  these  meetings 
were  not  purely  casual.  If  there  was  any  pre-arrangement,  it  was  in 
all  probability  nothing  more  than  a  tacit  agreement  of  Sidney  and  Dyer 
to  meet  from  time  to  time  for  reading  and  discussion.  The  existence 
of  a  literary  club  with  definite  membership,  known  as  the  Areopagus,  is 
doubtful.  Except  the  statements  of  scholars  in  the  last  fifty  years,  there 
seems  to  be  no  evidence  that  Spenser  and  Sidney  and  their  friends  ever 
organized  such  a  society. 

HOWARD  MAYNADIER. 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  U.S.A. 


1  See   the  poem   of  *W.  L.'  in   the  Verses  to   the  Author,  prefatory  to  the  Faerie 
Queene. 


THE  SOURCES.  OF  HEBBEL'S  'AGNES  BERNAUER. 

I 

THE  IDEAS  UNDERLYING  THE  DRAMA. 

WE  have  Hebbel's  own  authority  for  commencing  an  inquiry  into 
the  sources  of  Agnes  Bernauer  with  a  consideration  of  the  ideas 
underlying  the  play,  for  he  himself  has  drawn  attention  to  the  fact 
that  in  all  his  earlier  dramas,  the  ideas,  which  he  saw  embedded  in  the 
material,  formed  the  starting-point  for  his  inspiration.  Gyges  und  sein 
Ring,  he  tells  us1,  was  the  first  drama  in  which  he  started  from  the 
story  not  from  the  idea.  And  Agnes  Bernauer,  Hebbel's  only  drama  on 
national  history,  is  no  exception  to  the  rule.  The  historical  drama, 
according  to  Hebbel,  was  to  have  a  definite  '  meaning '  ('  Bedeutung '), 
that  is,  give  expression  to  some  idea,  which  would  give  unity  to  the 
work,  emphasize  the  general  in  the  particular  and  so  be  symbolical  for 
all  times :  '  dass  Herodes  das  Christenthum  als  erhabenstes  Cultur- 
Instrument  feiert,  dass  Michel  Angelo  die  tiefste  Demuth  predigt,  dass 
Agnes  Bernauer  den  Staat  als  die  Grund-Bedingung  alles  menschlichen 
Gedeihens  hinstellt,  der  jedes  Opfer  fordern  darf,  und  dass  Gyges  an 
die  ewigen  Rechte  der  Sitte  und  des  Herkommens  mahnt2' :  was  of 
primary  importance  in  the  eyes  of  the  poet,  and  only  after  full  justice 
had  been  done  to  the  idea,  did  Hebbel  allow  patriotic  motives  to  come 
to  the  front3.  As  may  be  seen  from  numerous  entries  in  his  diaries, 
Hebbel  frequently  invented  plots  to  illustrate  favourite  ideas ;  many  of 
these  dramatic  plans  were  never  utilized,  but  when  Hebbel  found 

1  Letter  of  December  14,  1854  (Hebbel's  Stimmtliche  Werke,  herausgegeben  von 
R.  M.  Werner,  Berlin,  1901  ff.  Briefwechsel,  v,  204).  For  convenience,  this  edition  of 
Hebbel's  correspondence  will  be  referred  to  in  the  following  pages  as  Bw.,  the  Tagebiicher 
and  Werke  in  the  same  edition  as  Tb.  and  S.  W.  respectively. 

'2  Letter  of  Nov.  11,  1857  (Bw.,  vi,  74).  The  extreme  importance  which  Hebbel  placed 
on  the  '  fundamental  motive '  of  a  drama  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  he  attributed  the  failure 
of  the  contemporary  Hohenstauffen  tragedies  to  the  circumstance  that  they  merely  depicted 
history  (cp.  Tb.,  n,  338). 

3  Letter  of  Jan.  27,  1863  (Bw.,  vn,  291). 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  303 

a  theme  in  history  or  saga  suited  to  voice  his  views,  poetic  inspiration 
often  set  in  and  the  drama  was  written  in  a  comparatively  short  space 
of  time.  This  was  the  case  with  Agnes  Bernauer:  the  ideas  which 
underlie  it  were  conceived  long  previously  and  are  intimately  connected 
with  Hebbel's  earlier  works  and  his  whole  line  of  thought,  but  the  actual 
work  on  the  drama  occupied  only  three  months1.  In  the  early  autumn 
of  1851  Hebbel  returned  from  a  lengthy  visit  to  Berlin,  and,  as  we  see 
from  his  correspondence,  he  found  plenty  of  work  awaiting  him2.  But, 
as  often  before,  the  autumn  roused  his  creative  faculties  and  by  Oct.  6 
he  had  already  half  finished  '  ein  kleines  Lustspiel '  and  was  busily 
engaged  on  'a  great  German  tragedy3.'  This  was  Agnes  Bernauer. 
On  Oct.  14,  he  completed  the  second  act,  on  Oct.  26,  the  third ;  the 
fourth  act,  commenced  on  Nov.  1,  was  finished  on  Nov.  25,  and  on  Dec.  7 
he  writes  that  there  were  only  a  few  scenes  wanting  in  the  tragedy4. 
These  were  written  by  Dec.  17,  and  by  Christmas  Eve  'die  letzten 
Ratten-  und  Mauselocher '  were  filled  up5.  Thus  the  whole  drama  was 
written  within  the  space  of  three  months ;  the  poet  experienced  even 
more  than  usual  happiness  in  his  work,  and,  as  is  to  be  seen  from  his 
letters  and  diaries,  was  more  than  usually  confident  of  its  success  and 
value6. 

We  do  not  know  how  Hebbel  first  became  acquainted  with  the  story 
of  Agnes  Bernauer,  which  was  so  well  adapted  to  embody  his  various 
plans  and  ideas.  Perhaps,  as  he  himself  says7,  Tdrring's  drama  was  one 
of  the  chief  reasons  which  induced  him  to  write  on  the  same  subject, 
but  it  is  just  possible  that  he  first  heard  of  Agnes  Bernauer  on  the 
occasion  of  his  visit  to  Munich  in  1838,  the  scene  of  part  of  the  drama 
and  the  town  where  so  many  of  his  later  plays  were  conceived8.  It  was 
there  that  he  heard  Gorres'  lectures  on  the  Middle  Ages,  which  inspired 
him  with  the  wish  :  'War'  man  doch  damals  geboren9!'  At  Munich  also 
he  formed  the  plan  of  a  great  mediaeval  tragedy  dealing  with  the  Maid 
of  Orleans10.  Whether  Hebbel  had  considered  the  problem  of  Agnes 
Bernauer  before  he  read  Torring's  drama  or  not,  the  fact  remains  that 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  subject  in  his  diaries  and  correspondence 
until  he  commenced  work  on  the  tragedy. 

1  Of.  B.  M.  Werner's  Introduction  to  Agnes  Bernauer  (S.  W.,  in). 

2  See  letter  of  Sep.  17,  1851  (Bw.,  iv,  320). 

3  Bw.,  iv,  326—7.  4  Bw.,  iv,  333,  and  diary. 

5  Tb.,  m,  413.  6  See  especially  letter  of  Jan.  23,  1852  (Bw.,  iv,  345). 

7  Letter  of  Aug.  20,  1853  (Bw.,  v,  123). 

8  Cf.  Einen  Geburtstag  auf  der  Eeise  (S.  W.,  vi,  247). 

9  Letter  of  Jan.  30,  1837  (Bw.,  i,  162). 

10  Cf.  E.  Kuh,  Biographie  F.  Hebbels,  Vienna,  1877,  i,  384 — 5. 


304          The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  'Agnes  Bernauer' 


The  earliest  entry  in  his  diary  concerning  the  play  clearly  points  to 


the  idea  which  first  of  all  attracted  him  to  the  story  of  Agnes  Bernauer : 
'Langst  hatte  ich  die  Idee,  auch  die  Schonheit  einmal  von  der 
tragischen,  den  Untergang  durch  sich  selbst  bedingenden  Seite  dar- 
zustellen  und  die  Agnes  Bernauerin  ist  dazu,  wie  gefunden1.'  The  tragic 
fate  of  perfection,  whether  moral  or  physical,  had  long  been  one  of 
Hebbel's  favourite  thoughts ;  it  had  already  found  poetic  expression  in 
Genoveva  and  seems  to  have  been  particularly  brought  home  to  him 
during  his  stay  in  Rome  in  the  spring  of  1845.  The  beauty  of  nature 
which  surrounded  him  there,  inspired  him  with  the  poem  Das  Opfer  des 
Fruhlings*,  in  which  Spring  at  the  height  of  his  glory  feels  a  sudden 
sadness,  when  gazing  at  the  reflection  of  his  beauty  in  the  stream  : 

Denn  ihm  sagt  ein  inn'res  Stocken, 
Dass  die  Gotter  neidisch  sind. 

The  beauty  of  the  Roman  women  also  made  a  great  impression  on  the 
mind  of  the  poet,  the  exceptional  loveliness  of  Signorina  Gagiati, 
especially,  dwelt  long  in  his  memory3.  It  is  not  surprising  then  that 
Hebbel,  who  was  always  so  prone  to  look  at  the  dark  side  of  things, 
should,  when  surrounded  by  so  much  beauty,  have  often  recurred  to  the 
idea  that  great  physical  perfection  may  be  not  a  blessing  but  a  curse  to 
its  possessor.  Thus  we  find  that  in  January  1845  Hebbel  conceived  the 
idea  of  two  tragedies  both  dealing  with  this  negative  aspect  of  beauty. 
The  first  was  to  show  the  ill  effects  which  beauty  produces  on  the 
character  of  a  young  girl ;  she  grows  ambitious,  is  not  content  with  her 
station  in  life,  arouses  the  envy  and  ill-will  of  her  neighbours  and  finally 
commits  suicide4.  The  second  tragedy,  in  which  we  distinctly  see  the 
germ  of  Agnes  Bernauer,  deals  with  the  harm  which  the  great  beauty 
of  an  innocent  girl  may  cause  in  the  world  through  no  fault  of  her  own5. 
Certain  points  in  this  plan  show  an  unmistakable  likeness  to  the  first 
act  of  Agnes  Bernauer.  Agnes  also  (Act  I,  sc.  5)  through  no  fault  of 
her  own  has,  when  the  play  opens,  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Augsburg:  the  men  admire  her  and  grow  indifferent  to  the 
women  they  had  formerly  loved ;  these  hate  Agnes,  and  she  finds  herself 
forsaken  by  her  former  friends.  Already  afraid  of  the  effects  of  her  own 
beauty,  she  does  not  wish  to  attend  the  tournament,  and  might  perhaps, 
if  Albrecht  had  not  crossed  her  path,  have  followed  the  advice  of  her 
jealous  friend  Barbara  and  entered  a  convent. 

1  Tb.,  m,  406  (Sept.  30,  1851).  2  S.  W.,  vi,  217. 

3  Letter  of  Jan.  30,  1845  (Bw.,  in,  195).  4  Tb.,  m,  4—5  (Jan.  8,  1845). 

5  Tb.,  m,  2—3  (Jan.  1845). 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  305 

As  the  drama  advanced,  other  ideas  came  more  into  the  foreground ; 
especially  the  political  element  gained  in  importance — 'das  Werk 
belehrte  den  Meister1' — and  so  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  the  state 
and  the  duty  of  a  king  to  his  subjects  became  gradually  clearer  to  the 
poet.  Curiously  enough,  it  was  again  at  Rome  that  Hebbel  seemed  to 
have  first  considered  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  head  of  the  state. 
An  entry  of  Feb.  21,  1845,  bears  directly  on  the  fundamental  problem 
of  Agnes  Bernauer :  '  Ein  Konig  hat  weniger  Recht,  ein  Individuum  zu 
seyn,  als  jeder  Andere2.'  For  Albrecht  insists  on  exercising  his  rights 
as  individual,  without  considering  that,  as  the  heir  apparent,  he  has  less 
right  to  exercise  them  than  anybody  else. 

At  this  time  also  Hebbel  sketched  out  other  dramas,  which  were  to 
deal  with  the  tragic  aspect  of  kingship.  One  only  bears  slightly  on 
Agnes  Bernauer — a  king  resigns  because  he  sees  that  his  supreme 
power  would  have  enabled  him  to  commit  a  terrible  crime,  and  wishes 
to  escape  temptation  for  the  future3.  Ernst  also  resigns  because  hia 
position  has  obliged  him  to  bring  about  the  death  of  Agnes,  and  he: 
wishes  his  son  to  acknowledge  the  justice  of  his  action.  A  similar  idea, 
occurred  to  Hebbel,  when  witnessing  a  performance  of  Emilia  Oalotti ; 
he  would  have  concluded  Lessing's  play  in  the  manner  of  Agnes 
Bernauer :  '  der  Prinz,  erschiittert  durch  Emilias  Tod,  giebt  seinem 
Lande  eine  Verfassung4.' 

The  political  events  of  1848  influenced  Hebbel  profoundly  and  again 
brought  home  to  him  the  responsibilities  and  duties  of  the  kingly  office ; 
they  also  enabled  him  to  perceive  the  bearing  of  the  social  problems  of 
Agnes  Bernauer  on  his  own  day;  'der  tiefe  Schmerz  um  Deutschland 
hat  mir  dies  Drama  abgepresst5.'  These  events  also  caused  Hebbel  to 
lay  special  stress  on  the  subordination  of  the  individual  to  the  state  :  he 
himself  draws  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  doctrine  is  preached  in  all 
his  works6,  and  he  realizes  that  it  will  not  meet  with  the  approval  of  the 
'  hollow  democracy '  of  his  time. 

The  murder  of  Agnes  is  the  logical  outcome  of  Hebbel's  view  of  the 
absolute  necessity  for  the  complete  subordination  of  the  individual  to 

1  Tb.,  in,  413  (Dec.  ,24,  1851).  2  Tb.,  in,  40. 

3  Tb.,  m,  64  (Sept.  29,  1845). 

4  Tb.,  m,  68  (Dec.  15,  1845).     It  might  also  be  noticed  that  a  few  years  before  the 
conception  of  Agnes  Bernauer  Hebbel  had  turned  his  attention  to  the  story  of  Struensee 
(1849)  and  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  a  like  lesson  could  be  drawn  from  it :  '  Am 
Schlusse  der  Tragodie  wird... jeder  Kronentrager  demuthsvoll  ausrufen:  ich  will  kein  Gott 
mehr  sein'  (S.  W.,  xi,  291). 

5  Letter  of  Jan.  23,  1852  (Bw.,  iv,  344). 

6  Letter  of  Feb.  16,  1852  (Bw.,  iv,  359). 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  20 


306          The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  'Agnes  Bernauer* 

the  welfare  of  society.  She  is  sacrificed  like  so  many  of  Hebbel's 
heroine's ;  while  Judith  and  Clara  voluntarily  give  their  lives,  the  one  to 
rescue  her  fellow-townsmen,  the  other  to  save  her  father,  while  Marianne 
dies  rather  than  sacrifice  her  individuality,  Agnes,  who  in  her  passivity 
may  be  compared  with  Genoveva,  is  sacrificed  for  the  good  of  Bavaria. 
But  Agnes  is  not  the  only  '  martyr'  in  the  drama;  Hebbel  lays  almost 
as  much  stress  on  the  sacrifice  which  Ernst  has  to  make..  He  has,  in 
his  devotion  to  duty,  to  commit  a  deed  which  his  soul  abhors,  and  also 
to  imperil  the  life  of  his  son,  for  he  is  not  for  one  moment  in  doubt  as 
to  the  possible  effect  of  Agnes's  murder  on  Albrecht.  This  idea  can 
also  be  traced  far  back  in  Hebbel's  life.  As  early  as  March,  1841,  the 
poet  notes  Abraham's  sacrifice  of  his  son  as  a  suitable  subject  for 
a  tragedy:  'die  Idee  des  Opferns  miisste  aus  ihm  selbst  kommen  und 
je  schwerer  ihm  die  Ausfiihrung  fiele,  um  so  mehr  miisste  er  an  dem 
furchtbaren  Pflichtgedanken  fest  halten.  Dann  die  Stimme  des  HeirnV 
The  likeness  to  Herzog  Ernst  is  unmistakable,  he  tries  every  other 
means  before  sacrificing  his  son;  then,  when  he  thinks  he  sees  the 
divine  hand  in  the  death  of  the  little  Prince  Adolf,  he  puts  all  his 
trust  in  God  and  knowingly  sacrifices  his  son  to  save  his  country 
(Act  iv,  sc.  5). 

This  brings  us  to  another  of  Hebbel's  theories,  namely  the  inter- 
vention of  the  Deity  in  human  affairs2.  In  his  history  of  the  Maid  of 
Orleans  written  as  far  back  as  1840,  Hebbel  expressed  the  opinion :  'in 
solchen  schicksalschwangeren  Augenblicken,...wo  Niemand  Recht  und 
Unrecht  zu  sondern...wagt,  hat  der  schwindelnde  Mensch  ein  Gefiihl,  als 
miisste  die  Gottheit  selbst  aus  ihren  Finsternissen  hervortreten  und  mit 
flammendem  Schwert  auf  den  Weg  deuten,  der  gewandelt  werden  soil3,' 
and  this  idea  has  found  expression  in  several  of  his  dramas.  Thus 
Judith  acts  by  divine  inspiration,  and  at  the  close  of  the  play  her  fate 
is  left  dependent  on  the  divine  will ;  Golo  directly  challenges  divine 
intervention,  when  he  ventures  on  the  perilous  ascent:  'Brech'  ich 
nicht  Hals  und  Bein  zu  dieser  Stund',  So  leg'  ich's  aus :  ich  soil  ein 
Schurke  sein'  (Genoveva,  Act  I,  sc.  3). 

In  no  play  of  Hebbel  is  such  prominence  given  to  this  idea  as  in 
Agnes  Bernauer,  for  Ernst  is  firmly  convinced  that  God  himself  desires 

1  Tb.,  n,  105.     Of.  also  the  sacrifice  of  Judas  in  the  Christus  fragment,  Hebbel's 
Sammtliche  Werke,  herausgegeben  von  E.  Kuh,  Hamburg,  1866  (vi,  xxxi). 

2  Cf.  Bulthaupt,  H.,  Dramaturgic  des  Schauspiels,  Oldenburg,  1894,  in,  135 — 140.   Also 
Tb.,  n,  73  (Oct.  26,  1840). 

3  S.W.,  ix,  238.     A.  v.  Weilen,  Hebbels  historische  Schriften  (Forschungen  zur  neueren 
Literaturgeschichte,  Festgabe  fiir  R.  Heinzel,  1898),  p.  442. 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  307 

the  death  of  Agnes — '  Gott  will  es  so  und  nicht  anders '  (Act  iv,  sc.  4) — 
and  has  placed  the  decision  in  divine  hands  by  proclaiming  Adolf  his 
successor  and  not  signing  Agnes  Bernauer's  death-sentence  as  long  as 
there  was  an  heir, '  und  Gott  selbst  hat  den  harten  Spruch  bestatigt,  da 
er  den  jungen  Prinzen  zu  sich  rief,  der  die  Vollziehung  allein  aufhielt' 
(Act  v,  sc.  2).  It  is  rather  difficult  to  account  for  this  divine  inter- 
vention even  from  Hebbel's  point  of  view;  we  can  quite  understand  that 
in  Judith  God  protected  His  chosen  people,  and  Hebbel  has  told  us  that 
the  Maid  of  Orleans  was  inspired  to  save  that  nation  because  from 
France  '  die  Revolution  ausgehen  sollte1 ' ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no 
adequate  reason  why  Bavaria  should  be  selected. 

There  remains  one  more  of  Hebbel's  dramas,  the  '  Grundidee '  of 
which  is  closely  connected  with  that  of  Agnes  Bernauer ;  when  in  the 
latter  drama  Kanzler  Preising  tries  to  convince  Agnes  of  the  necessity 
of  the  death-sentence  in  the  following  words :  '  Und  wenn's  einen  Edel- 
stein  gabe,  kostbarer,  wie  alle  zusammen,...und  ringsum  die  wildesten 
Leidenschaften  entzlindend,...durfte  der  Einzige,  der  noch  ungeblendet 
blieb,  ihn  nicht... ergreifen,  und  in's  Meer  hinunter  schleudern '  (Act  y, 
sc.  2),  we  are  at  once  reminded  of  the  '  Marchendrama '  Der  Rubin,  in 
which  the  jewel  brings  happiness  to  its  owner  as  soon  as  he  casts  it  from 
him,  in  accordance  with  one  of  Hebbel's  favourite  maxims,  '  Wirf  weg, 
damit  du  nicht  verlierst.'  Similarly  Albrecht  has  to  renounce  Agnes  in 
order  to  regain  his  true  self. 

Thus  the  fundamental  problems  of  Agnes  Bernauer  are  intimately 
connected  with  Hebbel's  previous  work,  and  many  plans  conceived  at 
various  periods  of  his  life  were  woven  into  it.  The  following  entry  in 
his  diary,  made  during  his  work  on  Julia,  applies  even  more  to  the 
writing  of  Agnes  Bernauer :  '  das  Stuck  breitet  sich  weiter  aus,  als  ich 
gedacht  hatte,  und  nimmt  sehr  viel  in  sich  auf,  was  in  mir  fertig  war2.' 


II. 
HEBBEL'S  HISTORICAL  SOURCES. 

Before  proceeding  to  investigate  the  histories  and  chronicles  actually 
consulted  by  Hebbel,  it  may  be  well  to  consider  briefly  Hebbel's  con- 
ception of  the  attitude  of  the  dramatist  towards  an  historical  subject  in 
general3.  To  a  poet,  who  laid  so  much  emphasis  on  the  distinction 

1  Tb.,  ii,  55  (July  27,  1840).  -  Tb.,  in,  128  (Nov.  29,  1846). 

3  Cf.  H.  Koch,  Uber  das  Verhdltnis  von  Drama  und  Geschichte  bei  F.  Hebbel  (Munich 
Dissertation).     Leipzig,  1904. 

20—2 


308          The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  'Agnes  Bernauer ' 

between  Art  and  Life1  and  consequently  between  history  and  an 
historical  drama,  the  thought  was  intolerable  that  the  duty  of  a 
dramatist  should  be  identical  with  that  of  the  historian  and  should  be 
comprised  in  the  endeavour  to  bring  the  past  vividly  before  us  by 
closely  following  its  records.  If  the  historian  and  the  poet  have  the 
same  function,  Hebbel  did  not  see  the  raison  d'etre  of  the  poet2.  '  Der 
Dichter  ist  nicht  der  Auferstehungsengel  der  Geschichte ' ;  he  has 
higher  aims  and  so  need  not  keep  close  to  history,  for  '  fur  wen  das  von 
der  Geschichte  abweichende  historische  Drama  eine  Stinde  an  der 
Geschichte  ist,  fur  den  muss  auch  der  Tisch  eine  Siinde  am  Baum 
seyn3.' 

On  what  then  is  the  poet  to  rely,  if  he  is  not,  like  the  historian,  to 
acquire  a  knowledge  of  life  in  the  past  by  a  laborious  study  of  records  ? 
Hebbel  has  but  one  answer :  '  inspiration ' ;  at  a  flash  the  past  in  all  its 
bearings  must  rise  vividly  before  his  eyes,  as,  for  example,  the  drama  of 
Judith  took  shape  in  Hebbel's  mind  before  Giulio  Romano's  picture  in 
the  Munich  gallery4.  In  his  correspondence  Hebbel  has  given  an 
account  of  this  inspiration  :  '  ich  bereite  mich  so  wenig  auf  [ein  Drama] 
vor,  wie  auf  einen  Traum,  und  begreife  nicht  einmal,  wie  man  das  kann. 
Ich  sehe  Gestalten,  mehr  oder  weniger  hell  beleuchtet,  sey  es  nun  im 
Damrnerlicht  meiner  Phantasie  oder  der  Geschichte,  und  es  reizt  mich 
sie  fest  zu  halten,  wie  der  Maler ;  Kopf  nach  Kopf  tritt  hervor  und  alles 
tibrige  findet  sich  hinzu,  wenn  ich's  brauche5.'  Events  thus  intuitively 
seen,  have  the  same  effect  on  the  poet  as  those  he  has  actually  ex- 
perienced— 'so  erlebt  der  Dichter  die  Geschichte8' — and  have  a  far 
higher  value  than  the  results  of  historical  research7.  The  chief  duty  of 
the  poet  towards  history  consists,  according  to  Hebbel,  in  bringing  into 
prominence  the  idea  which  underlies  the  historical  data  and  which  in 
real  life  is  often  hidden.  This  idea  waS  in  all  Hebbel's  earlier  dramas 
the  starting-point  for  his  inspiration ;  thus  we  have  seen  how  in  Agnes 
Bernauer  the  conception  of  the  harmful  effects  of  beauty  first  attracted 
him  to  the  subject  and  how  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  the  state 
interested  him  as  the  drama  proceeded. 

According  to  these  views  we  should  expect  that  Hebbel  would  only 
study  historical  sources  superficially  before  setting  to  work  on  a  drama, 

1  Tb.,  iv,  161  (March  7,  1860).  2  Cf.  S.  W.,  xi,  59. 

3  Tb.,  m,  217  (March  10,  1847).  4  S.  W.,  i,  410. 

5  Letter  of  Dec.  2,  1858  (Bw.,  vi,  216). 

6  Hebbel's  Briefwechsel,  herausgegeben  von  F.  Bamberg,  Berlin,  1890-2,  n,  475. 

7  Cf.  his  criticism  of  Massinger's  Ludovico.     Hebbel  exclaims,  '  das  kann  nicht  wahr 
sein...hier  ist  Josephus  schlecht  unterrichtet '  (S.  W.,  xi,  250). 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  309 

but  we  find  that  exactly  the  opposite  is  the  case.  Instead  of  merely 
concerning  himself  with  the  outlines  and  the  main  ideas  underlying 
the  subject,  we  find  that  he  made  most  thorough  and  painstaking 
investigations  of  all  the  historical  sources  at  his  command.  He  attached 
great  importance  to  the  delineation  of  the  milieu.  Every  character  in 
the  drama  '  must  be  rooted  in  his  times '  and  must  reflect  his  surround- 
ings in  every  utterance.  Thus  the^  characters  of  Agnes  Bernauer  should 
speak  as  Germans  of  the  fifteenth  century,  each  again  differently 
according  to  his  station,  and  the  whole  play  must  be  pervaded  by  the 
'Zeitgeist'  of  Germany  at  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages1. 

Turning  now  to  HebbeL's  historical  studies  in  connection  with 
Agnes  Bernauer,  we  find  that  on  the  whole  he  kept  pretty  closely  to 
his  sources  as  the  facts  were  peculiarly  well  adapted  to  give  expression 
to  several  of  his  favourite  theories;  only  a  few  alterations  were 
necessary  to  give  special  prominence  to  these  ideas.  '  Ich  habe  eine 
einfach  riihrende,  menschlich  schb'ne  Handlung,  treu  und  schlicht,  wie 
der  Chronist  sie  iiberliefert,  in  die  Mitte  gestellt  und  das  Reich  mit 
alien  seinen  Elementen  steht  dahinter2.'  We  see  from  Hebbel's  con- 
temptuous reference  to  Melchior  Meyr's  work  that  he  did  not  consider 
the  study  of  recent  historians  sufficient :  '  er  [Meyr]  hat  hochstens  im 
Falkenstain,  vielleicht  nur  im  Mannert  geblattert,  gewiss  aber  nicht 
die  Quellen  gelesen3,'  and  from  his  conversation  with  the  king  of 
Bavaria  that  he  consulted  '  Chroniken,5  but  not  '  Reichsarchive4.' 

Professor  R.  M.  Werner  mentions5  that  the  Goethe  and  Schiller 
Archive  has  in  its  possession  a  piece  of  bluish  paper  with  notes  in 
Hebbel's  handwriting  from  which  some  of  his  sources  can  be  inferred. 
Besides  the  books  mentioned  in  the  letter  to  Dingelstedt,  namely 
J.  H.  von_Falckenstein's  Vollstandige  Geschichten...des  grossen  Her- 
zogthums...Bayern)  ill.  Theil,  Miinchen,  Ingolstadt  und  Augspurg,  1763, 
and  K.  Mannert's  Die  Geschichte  Bayerns  aus  den  Quellen,  Leipzig,  1826, 
Prof.  Werner  notes  P.  von  Stetten's  Geschichte  der...Stadt  Augspurg, 
Frankfurt  und  Leipzig,  1743,  and  Marx  Welsers  des  Jilngern  Chronica 
der  Stadt  Augspurg... Translated  by  Engelbert  Werlich,  Frankfurt 
am  Main,  1595.  In  addition  to  these,  the  following  investigation  will 
show  that  Hebbel  in  all  probability  also  used  F-jJ^JLipowsky's  Agnes 

1  Cf.  Hebbel's  opinion  of  Genoveva,  '  ich  glaube,  was  in  diesem  Stuck  wirkt,  ist  die 
concentrirte  Darstellung  des  Mittelalters '  (Bw.,  iv,  315). 

2  Letter  of  Dec.  12,  1851  (Bw.,  iv,  337). 

3  Letter  of  Jan.  26,  1852  (Bw.,  iv,  348). 

4  Letter  of  March  3,  1852  (Bw.,  iv,  382). 
6  S.  W.,  in,  442—3. 


310          The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  '  Agnes  Bernauer' 

Bernauerinn,  Munich,  1800,  and  an  anonymous  translation  of  Veit 
Arnpeck's  Chronicon  Boioariae  printed  by  M.  von  Freyberg  (Sammlung 
historischer  Schriften,  I,  1827).  These^axajnost  likely  all  the  historical 
works  consulted  by  the  poet,  as  almost  all  deviations  from  them  can  be 
explained  as  concessions  to  the  ideas  which  Hebbel  desired  to  embody 
in  the  drama.  The  chief  chronicles,  besides  those  already  cited,  which 
mention  Agnes  Bernauer,  such  as  Oeffele's  and  Adlzreiter's,  are  in  Latin, 
and  as  we  have  it  on  Hebbel's  own  authority  (for  example,  Tb.,  Oct.  16, 
1839 ;  Jan.  19,  1842)  that  he  was  never  able  to  read  that  language, 
it  is  extremely,  unlikely  that  he  consulted  them. 


A.    HEBBEL'S  INDEBTEDNESS  TO  LIPOWSKY'S  'AGNES  BERNAUERIN.' 

There  is  no  mention  of  Lipowsky's  book  in  Hebbel's  diaries  and 
correspondence,  but  the  fact  that  he  does  not  mention  it  is  not 
conclusive  evidence  that  he  did  not  know  it,  for  he  also  makes  no 
reference  to  Braunfels'  translation  of  the  Nibelungenlied,  and  yet 
Professor  Werner  has  a  copy  of  that  work  in  his  possession  with  notes 
in  the  poet's  handwriting,  and  in  many  instances  direct  borrowing  of 
phraseology  from  this  translation  is  traceable1. 

Lipowsky's  little  book  on  Agnes  Bernauer  tells  her  story  in  a 
sentimental  and  rather  didactic  manner ;  at  the  end  of  the  book  there 
are  numerous  notes  in  which  the  author  endeavours  to  justify  his 
statements  by  quotations  from  chronicles  (Latin  and  German),  and  in 
an  appendix  we  find  original  documents  of  the  period,  such  as  Ernst's 
instructions  to  his  chancellor  and  the  '  Stiftungsurkunden,'  in  which 
Albrecht  decreed  that  a  perpetual  mass  should  be  held  in  memory  of 
Agnes  Bernauer.  These  documents  must  have  been  invaluable  to 
Hebbel,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  wished  to  get  as  near  the  original  sources 
as  possible.  The  '  Personennamen '  point  to^  Lipowsky :  the  following 
names  seem  to  have  been  taken  from  him :  Degenberg  (Agnes  Bernauer, 
Act  v,  sc.  8,  Lipowsky,  p.  103);  Nothhaft,  or,  as  Hebbel  writes,  Nothhafft 
von  Wernberg  (Lipowsky,  p.  106 ;  but  this  name  also  occurs  in  other 
sources)2;  Caspar  Bernauer,  again,  is  namedjmly  by  Lipowsky  (p.  15), 
and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Otto  Ludwig,  who  in  his  later  versions 
of  Agnes  Bernauer  followed  Xipowsky3,  also  calls  Agnes's  father  Caspar; 

1  See  Aimina  Periam,  Hebbel's  Nibelungen,  New  York,  1906,  25 ;  also  Werner's  note, 
S.  W.,  iv,  346. 

2  The  name  Pienzenau  (Lipowsky,  p.  173)  also  occurs  in  Torring's  Agnes  Bernauerin. 

3  0.  Ludwig's  Nachlass  (i,  149)  herausgegeben  von  M.  Heydrich,  Leipzig,  1874. 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  311 

finally  Emeran  Nusperger  zu  Kalmperg,  who  plays  such  a  mysterious 
part  in  the  drama,  is  expressly  mentioned  by  Lipowsky  (p.  36)  as 
deputed  to  carry  out  the  death-sentence. 

Appended  is  a  brief  review  of  the  chief  similarities  to  Lipowsky  in 
the  order  in  which^  they  occur  in  Hebbel's  drama.  Only  those  cases 
have  been  noted  where  Lipowsky  deviates  from  the  other  sources 
expressly  mentioned  by  Hebbel. 

Act  I.  sjL-14;  Lipowsky  states  that  Albrecht,  whilst  attending  the 
tournament  at  Augsburg,  first  heard  of  Elizabeth's  flight  and  shortly 
afterwards  saw  Agnes  Bernauer  for  the  first  time.  This  is  also  the 
sequence  of  events  in  Hebbel's  drama.  Moreover,  both  Lipowsky  (p.  7) 
and  Hebbel  mention  that  the  town  of  Goppingen  was  given  as  a  pledge 
by  the  Duke  of  Wiirtemberg.  I  can  find  no  reference  to  this  town  in 
any  other  history  or  chronicle,  nor  does  it  occur  in  Torring's  drama.  It 
should  however  also  be  noticed  that  Hebbel  quotes  a  different  sum  for 
the  '  Strafgeld.' 

Act  I,  sc.  18:  Caspar's  reference  to  the  'Unehrlichkeit'  of  the  '  Bader.' 
Werlich  (p.  115)  merely  notes  that  the  'Bader'  formed  a  special  'Zunfb,' 
but  Lipowsky  (pp.  24,  89)  specially  mentions  that  '  Bader '  were  con- 
sidered '  unehrlich '  until  the  fifteenth  century. 

Act  in,  sc.  5 :  Lipowsky  mentions  that  in  1468  a  '  Stiftskirche '  was 
built  over  the  grave  of  Ernst's  wife.  In  the  play  Ernst  himself  is 
represented  as  having  the  chapel  built. 

In  the  development  of  the  plot  in  this  act,  there  are  several  striking 
coincidences  with  Lipowsky:  (1)  Albrecht's  marriage  is  kept  secret  for 
some  time  (p.  19).  (2)  Ernst  regards  the  affair  with  Agnes  as  mere 
gallantry  and  thinks  that  his  son  will  soon  tire  of  her.  (3)  Ernst 
determines  to  marry  Albrecht  to  Anna  von  Braunschweig  in  order 
to  separate  him  from  Agnes.  (4)  Albrecht  refuses  to  marry  Anna. 
(Falckenstein,  p.  463,  merely  mentions  that  Albrecht  was  married  to 
Anna  after  the  death  of  Agnes  Bernauer  '  um  seinen  Schmerz  zu 
lindern  und  verbreiben  ' ;  in  Torring's  drama — Act  II,  sc.  3 — a  marriage 
with  Anna  is  proposed  after  the  tournament  in  order  to  conciliate 
Albrecht  and  '  um  ihn  nicht  ganz  von  der  Liebe  zu  entwb'hnen ! ') 

Act  in,  sc.  13 :  As  will  be  shown  later,  Hebbel  borrowed  a  few 
minor  details  from  Torring  in  this  scene,  but  in  the  main  action  he  has 
closely  followed  Lipowsky.  This  whole  tournament  scene  is,  strictly 
speaking,  unhistorical ;  Oefelle1  relates  that  Albrecht  was  insulted  and 
struck  ('impugnatus  et  percussus')  at  a  tournament  held  at  Regensburg 
1  Quoted  by  Lipowsky,  p.  94. 


312          The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  '  Agnes  Bernauer' 

in  1434,  because  he  would  not  contract  a  legitimate  marriage.  The 
other  chroniclers  who  mention  the  tournament,  Andreas  von  Regens- 
burg  and  Hochwart1,  for  example,  say  pretty  much  the  same,  but  not  one 
of  them  mentions  the  presence  of  Herzog  Ernst.  From  this  statement 
Torring  would  appear  to  have  built  up  his  '  Turnierscene '  in  which  he 
has  been  followed  by  every  other  dramatist  of  Agnes  Bemauer,  and 
curiously  enough  also  by  the  historian  Lipowsky,  who  describes  what 
occurred  at  Regensburg  in  these  words2 :  '  Schon  wollte  er  den  Kampf- 
plaz  in  voller  Riistung  betretten,  als  man  ihm  erofnete :  er  dlirfe  nicht 
turnieren,  fur  ihn  waren  die  Schranken  geschlossen,  weil  er  ein  Madchen 
unehrlich  hielt...-.Dieser  ihm  offentlich...erwiesene  Schimpf  machte  den 
Herzog  Albrecht  rasend.  Wiitend  drang  er  auf  jene  ein,  die  ihm  die 
Turnier-Schranken  nicht  6'fnen  wollten ;  ich  gebe  rnich  nicht  mit  einer 
Buhldirne  ab,...rief  er  mit  hallender  Stimme,  Agnes  ist  meine  Gattin, 
meine  Gattin  durch  das  Band  der  Ehe,  geschlossen  im  Angesicht  der 
heiligen  Kirche ;  und  so  kam  es  dann  hier  selbst  zu  Thatigkeiten, 
wobei  Herzog  Albrecht  sogar  geschlagen  wurde.'  It  will  be  noted  that 
Lipowsky  has  followed  Torring  in  two  respects :  Albrecht  is  not  allowed 
to  enter  the  lists,  and  delivers  a  passionate  speech ;  but  Albrecht's 
declaration  that  Agnes  Bernauer  is  his  lawfully  wedded  wife  appears 
to  be  Lipowsky's  own  invention.  The  only  authorities  that  he  can 
bring  forward  on  this  point  are  Adlzreiter's  statement  that  Albrecht 
openly  boasted  of  his  ignoble  marriage  (p.  92),  and  Falckenstein,  in, 
460:  'Albrecht  liess  sich  offentlich  verlauten,  er  wiirde  sich  wider  Willen 
seines  Vaters  dieselbe  als  eine  rechtsmassige  Gemahlin  antrauen  lassen' 
(p.  93). 

Returning  to  Hebbel's  play,  we  notice  a  most  important  resemblance 
to  Lipowsky,  and  that  in  a  point  which  has  just  been  shown  to  be  the 
historian's  invention,  namely  Albrecht's  declaration  of  his  marriage  at 
the  tournament,  and  if  further  evidence  were  needed  that  Hebbel  was 
immediately  influenced  by  Lipowsky,  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  latter  (p.  92)  quotes  as  '  Artikel  10 '  of  the  '  Heidelberger  und 
Heilbrunner  Turnier-Ordnungen '  the  phrase  '  welcher  vom  Adel  ge- 
boren  und  herkommen  ist,... und  Frauen  und  Jungfrauen  schwachte...,' 
and  that  Ernst  in  Hebbel's  drama  also  orders  the  '  Marschall '  to  read 
this  article  and  the  official  thereupon  uses  the  identical  words  quoted 
by  Lipowsky. 

1  Lipowsky,  p.  93. 

2  I  have  quoted  the  passage  (Lipowsky,  pp.  25,  26)  because   of  its  resemblance  to 
Hebbel's  description  of  the  scene. 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  313 

Act  IV,  sc.  2 :  Lipowsky  relates  (p.  29)  that  it  was  rumoured  that 
Agnes  Bernauer  had  poisoned  the  little  Prince  Adolf,  and  he  shows  at 
some  length  that  the  charge  was  a  base  calumny.  Hebbel  has  enlarged 
here ;  in  his  drama  the  Bavarian  people  attribute  the  death  of  Herzog 
Wilhelm  and  his  wife  as  well  as  that  of  their  son  Adolf  to  Agnes's  evil 
machinations.  To  this  and  the  following  point  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
return  later. 

Act  iv,  sc.  4:  Lipowsky  (p.  29)  states  that  as  long  as  Herzog 
Wilhelm  lived,  Agnes  Bernauer  was  safe ;  this  may  have  given  Hebbel 
the  idea  of  making  Agnes's  life  depend  on  that  of  Adolf. 

The  following  passages  from  Lipowsky  perhaps  influenced  Hebbel's 
conception  of  the  problem  of  Agnes  Bernauer;  they  are  however  of 
minor  importance,  as  Hebbel  already  found  the  same  idea  fully  treated 
in  Torring's  drama.  'Nun  war  die  Liebesgeschichte...eine  Staatsange- 
legenheit,  wichtig  genug  fur  Baiern,  und  langere  Nachsicht  schien  dem 
Herzog  Ernst. .  .selbst  Verbrechen  gegen  sein  Volk,  gegen  Baiern,  zu  seyn' 
(p.  31),  and  'der  Rath  erklarte  die  Heurath...als  ein  Staatsverbrechen, 
das  nur  durch  den  Verlust  ihres  Lebens  konnte  abgebusset  werden1 ' 
(compare  drama,  Act  iv,  sc.  3 :  '  ja  sogar  wegen  blosser  Eingehung  einer 
solchen  Ehe...vom  Leben  zum  Tode  gebracht  werden  diirfe'). 

The  next  point  is  of  more  importance;  Lipowsky  (p.  27)  relates 
that  immediately  after  the  tournament,  Agnes  Bernauer  was  publicly 
acknowledged  Duchess  of  Bavaria  and  taken  in  pomp  from  Vohburg  to 
Straubing.  This  exactly  corresponds  to  Hebbel's  Act  iv,  sc.  5  :  '  Nichts 
hat  mich  so  verdrossen,  als  das  Geprange,  mit  dem  er  sie  gleich  nach 
dem  Regensburger  Tag,  einer  Herzogin  gleich,  von  Vohburg  nach 
Straubing  fiihrte,'  and  Agnes's  speech  (Act  iv,  sc.  7)  beginning  '  Was 
sonst  ?  Ich  seh'  schon  bei  Tage  einmal....' 

In  regard  to  the  question  of  Agnes  choosing  her  own  grave,  to 
which  Hebbel  attached  so  much  importance  ('  der  ganze  Character  liegt 
darin2'),  it  may  be  mentioned  that  in  the  '  Stiftungsurkunden '  quoted 
by  Lipowsky  (pp.  150 — 169),  reference  is  made  to  the  lamp  for'ain  ewigs 
liecht'  which  in  the  drama  is  the  last  gift  Agnes  is  ever  to  ask  from  her 
husband. 

Act  v :  Lipowsky  (p.  36)  is  the  only  writer  who  relates  that  the 
execution  was  entrusted  to  Nusperger.  This  statement  appears  to  be 
Lipowsky 's  own  invention,  for  he  mentions  in  a  note  (p.  103)  that  he 
has  not  been  able  to  ascertain  the  names  of  Agnes's  judges,  but  that 

1  Lipowsky,  p.  35. 

2  Letter  of  Jan.  26,  1852  (Bw.,  iv,  348). 


314          The  Sources  of  Hebbel' s  'Agnes  Bernauer' 

Oeffele  gives  a  list  of  Ernst's  '  Rathe '  in  1433,  among  whom  are 
Nusperg  and  Degenberg ;  he  further  states  (pp.  105  f.)  that  the  former 
was  '  Richter  zu  Straubing '  at  the  time  of  Agnes's  murder  and  '  da  es 
unter  der  Wiirde  eines  Vitzthums  von  Niederbaiern  war,  der  Vollzie- 
hung  des  Todesurtheils  von  Amtswegen  beizuwohnen,  und  daher 
solches  dem  Richter  von  Straubing  oblag,...so  werde  ich  keine  irrige 
Meinung  wagen,  wenn  ich  behaupte,  dass  der  Vizedom  von  Straubing 
...gar  keinen  Antheil  an  der  Aburtheilung  der  Agnes  Bernauerin  hatte.' 
Hebbel  has  therefore  again  followed  Lipowsky  in  a  point  which  is  that 
historian's  invention. 

Act  v,  sc.  8 :  Lipowsky  also  mentions  (p.  40)  that  Albrecht  allied 
himself  with  Ludwig  of  Ingolstadt  and  invaded  Bavaria :  '  Dorfer 
loderten  in  Flammen...und  Bauern  wurden...gepliindert...ja  selbst 
getodtet.  Kein  Feind  konnte  im  Lande  grausamer  wiithen '  (pp.  42 — 3). 
This  is  exactly  what  occurs  in  the  drama.  Compare  especially 
Lipowsky,  p.  38:  'so  will  ich... an  meinem  Vater,  an  meinem  Vaterlande, 
und  an  alien,  die  Ursache  dieses  grausamen  Mordes  waren,  schrokliche 
Rache  nehmen,'  with  the  beginning  of  scene  8. 

Act  v,  sc.  9 :  Lipowsky  (p.  43)  relates  that  Albrecht  is  victorious 
and  that  Ernst  sends  to  Kaiser  Sigmund  asking  him  '  ein  Schreiben 
an  seinen  Sohn  zu  erlassen '  (p.  44).  Lipowsky  also  gives  a  copy  of  the 
exact  instructions  given  by  Ernst  to  his  official  for  the  journey  (p.  175). 
These  are  important  as  showing  that  Hebbel  must  have  been  aware 
how  widely  the  historical  Ernst  differed  from  his  own  conception  of 
him.  This  point  again  will  be  discussed  later :  for  the  present  it  need 
only  be  noted  that  no  other  writer  consulted  by  Hebbel  mentions  any 
interference  on  the  part  of  the  Emperor  and  that  Hebbel  no  doubt  here 
enlarged  on  Lipowsky. 

B.    HEBBEL'S  INDEBTEDNESS  TO  OTHER  HISTORICAL  WORKS 

AND   CHRONICLES1. 

I.     HISTORIES  OF  BAVARIA. 

The  only  two  histories  of  Bavaria  which  can  be  shown  to  have 
directly  influenced  Hebbel's  play  are  those  to  which  he  refers  so 
contemptuously  in  the  letter  to  Dingelstedt,  namely  Mannert's  and 
Falckenstein's.  Both  writers  devote  considerable  space  to  the  murder 
of  Agnes  Bernauer  and  strongly  censure  the  deed.  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  in  the  case  of  conflicting  records  Falckenstein  is  very  careful  to 
1  Cf.  R.  M.  Werner's  notes  to  Agnes  Bernauer,  S.  W.,  in,  445 — 478. 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  315 

state  all  sides  of  the  question,  while  Mannert  as  a  rule  only  gives  one 
version.  In  such  a  case  it  will  be  seen  that  Hebbel  has  nearly  always 
followed  Mannert. 

Again  I  have  only  noted  resemblances  when  similar  passages  do  not 
occur  in  any  other  of  Hebbel's  sources. 

1.    MANNERT'S  'GESCHICHTE  BAYEKNS.' 

'  Personennamen.'  On  p.  251  of  Vol.  I  Mannert  gives  a  list  of  noble 
Bavarian  families,  from  which  Hebbel  seems  to  have  taken  the  names 
Seyboltsdorf  and  Leubolfing  (Hebbel  writes  Laubelfing).  The  names 
Preysiug  and  Torring  also  occur  in  the  list,  but  are  not  necessarily 
taken  from  Mannert  ;  Torring  was  no  doubt  inserted  as  a  compliment 
to  Graf  Torring  and  Preising  may  have  been  taken  from  Torring's 
drama.  On  p.  217  Mannert  mentions  'Ortenburg';  Ortenberg  was  the 
name  which  Hebbel  gave  to  one  of  Albrecht's  friends  in  his  original  MS. 
until  the  fourth  act,  when  he  substituted  '  Frauenhoven.' 

Mannert  has  not  influenced  the  plot  of  the  drama  in  the  same 
degree  as  Lipowsky ;  as  was  to  be  expected,  borrowings  mainly  occur 
in  the  references  to  Bavarian  history.  Curiously  enough,  Hebbel  seems 
to  have  used  Mannert  almost  entirely  in  Acts  in  and  iv  and  then 
chiefly  in  the  scenes  between  Ernst  and  Preising. 

Act  in,  sc.  1 :  This  scene  is  strongly  influenced  by  Mannert ;  the 
following  are  the  chief  points:  (1)  '  Ich  kann's  nicht  lassen,  und  es 
argert  mich  doch  immer  wieder  von  Neuem.  Das  war  Baiern  einst,  und 
das  ist  Baiern  jetzt!...Aber  wie  mancher  alte  Mann  muss  noch  leben,  der 
der  Zeit  noch  recht  gut  gedenkt,  wo  Tyrol  und  Brandenburg  und  das 
fette  Holland. .  .unser  war.'  Mannert  heads  chapters  12, 13, 14  of  Book  II 
'  Bayerns  Theilung  und  Sinken — Brandenburg  verloren — Holland  ver- 
loren ' ;  and  on  p.  333  draws  attention  to  the  size  of  Bavaria  under 
Kaiser  Ludwig.  This  is  obviously  responsible  for  Ernst's  retrospection. 

(2)  '...die  ganze  Reihe  von  Thorheiten...,  durch  die  das  Alles  verloren 
ging !     Nein,  wie  Ihr  gewirthschaftet  habt ! '     Mannert  (p.  334)  also 
strongly  blames  the  conduct  of  Kaiser  Ludwig's  sons,  and  he  attributes 
the  cause  of  Bavaria's  decay  to  their  stupidity  and  folly.     Falckenstein, 
on  the  other  hand',  has  no  word  of  blame  for  Ludwig's  descendants. 

(3)  'Kaiser  Ludwig...,  der  Du  jeden  Feind  bestandst,  ausgenommen  den 
letzten,  heimlichen,  ohne  Namen  und  Gesicht...wenn  der  Giftmischer 
sich  nicht  mit  Wein  und  Brot  gegen  Dich  verschworen  und  Dich  vor 
der  Zeit  ausgethan  hatte ! '    Here  Hebbel  takes  it  for  granted  that  Kaiser 


316          The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  'Agnes  Bernauer' 

Ludwig  was  poisoned.  Similarly  Mannert  (p.  330)  gives  his  opinion : 
'  dass  Gift  sein  Leben  klirzte,  ist  schwerlich  zu  bezweifeln ;  woher  das 
Gift  kam,  weiss  niemand.'  Hebbel  has  again  followed  Mannert  rather 
than  Falckenstein  (p.  288),  who  thinks  it  is  most  likely  that  the  Emperor 
died  a  natural  death. 

Hebbel's  conception  of  Ernst's  character  was  certainly  influenced  by 
Mannert's  praise  of  his  beneficent  rule  (p.  469) :  '  Friede  herrschte  in 
seinen  Bezirken. .  .das  Land  erholte  sich  allmahlich  von  den  furchterlichen 
Verwiistungen  des  frtihern  Krieges.  Miinchen. .  .hatte  einen  Vater  an  ihm 
gefunden;. . .mit  dem  freyen  Handel  wuchs  Wohlhabenheit. . .Die  Anhang- 
lichkeit  der  Burger  an  den  Landesherrn  zeigte  sich  weniger  durch  Worte 
als  durch  Handlungen.'  These  passages  apply  exactly  to  Hebbel's 
Herzog  Ernst  and  are  peculiar  to  Mannert  among  Hebbel's  sources; 
no  other  writer  consulted  by  him  praises  Ernst  in  the  same  degree. 

Act  in,  sc.  6 :  Ernst's  interview  with  Preising.  In  this  scene  also 
there  are  several  resemblances  to  Mannert,  again  mainly  in  points  of 
Bavarian  history.  Preising :  '  Das  war'  wohl  das  erste  Mai,  dass 
Herzog  Wilhelm  Etwas  wollte,  was  Ew.  Gnaden  nicht  wollen  ! '  Ernst : 
'  Eben  darum  soil  man  ihn  riie  vorbei  gehen  ! '  corresponds  to  Mannert : 
'  Was  dieser  [Ernst]  that,  genehmigte  Wilhelm,  und  er  that  nichts, 
ohne  sich  mit  Wilhelm  zu  berathen'  (p.  468). 

Ernst's  reference  to  the  '  Kurhut '  ('  das  hat  Kaiser  Rudolf  durch 
seinen  doppelten  Spruch  so  verwickelt ')  is  fully  explained  by  Mannert 
(p.  278).  In  1275  Kaiser  Rudolf  decided  that  the  '  Kurwurde '  belonged 
to  Bavaria,  but  in  1290  conferred  it  on  his  son-in-law,  the  king  of 
Bohemia.  Falckenstein  does  not  mention  this.  Ernst:  '...es  ist  die 
Strafe  uns'rer  eig'nen  Jugendsiinden,  dass  wir  gegen  die  unserer  Kinder 
nachsichtig  sein  miissen,'  corresponds  exactly  to  Mannert  (p.  470) :  '  Die 
Liebeshandel  erfuhr  der  Vater  und  driickte  seiner  eignen  Jugendzeit 
sich  erinnernd,  ein  Auge  zu.'  On  p.  457  Mannert  comments  on  the 
'  Scharfsinn '  of  Ludwig  der  Hockerige  of  Ingolstadt ;  this  no  doubt  is 
responsible  for  Hebbel's  anecdote  of  '  der  Burggraf  von  Niirnberg,  der 
kleine  Buckligte.'  Ernst:  '...mein  Bruder  soil  die  Ausschreibungen  auf 
der  Stelle  erlassen,...das  ist  ein  Geschaft  fur  ihn!'  may  be  traced  to 
Mannert's  reference  to  Wilhelm's  'Vorliebe  zu  ausserer  Pracht'  (p.  468). 

Hebbel  makes  two  references  to  Margaretha  von  Karnten,  the 
daughter-in-law  of  Kaiser  Ludwig.  In  Act  ill,  sc.  10  Preising  tells 
Albrecht  how  his  ancestor  Ludwig,  son  of  the  Emperor,  married  the 
ugly  Margaretha,  heiress  of  Tyrol,  and  by  this  act  earned  the  thanks  of 
his  subjects,  who  'unter  seiner  Regierung  das  Salz  noch  einmal  so  billig 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  317 

kauffcen,...und  ihn...dafur  segneten!'  Both  Falckenstein  and  Mannert 
speak  of  this  marriage,  but  neither  depicts  Ludwig  as  sacrificing  himself 
for  the  good  of  his  country.  On  the  contrary,  Mannert  states  (p.  326) 
that  Ludwig  specially  desired  the  marriage,  as  the  acquisition  of  Tyrol 
would  facilitate  an  invasion  of  Italy.  Hebbel,  who  of  course  wished  the 
moral  to  be  brought  home  to  Albrecht,  perhaps  built  up  his  view  of  the 
marriage  from  this  note  (Mannert,  p.  332) :  '  Miinchen  sollte  [unter  Kaiser 
Ludwig]  Mittelpunkt  des  Salzhandels  seyn,'  and  Falckenstein's  remark 
(p.  277):  'Der  Sohn...bezeugte  keine  sonderbare  Lust  darzu,  denn  es 
mogte  ihm  eines  Theils  ihre  unangenehme  Bildung  missfallen.'  In  the 
unimportant  point  with  regard  to  the  number  of  Ludwig  and  Margaretha's 
children,  Hebbel  has  again  followed  Mannert  in  preference  to  Falckenstein. 
In  Act  iv,  sc.  4,  Preising  recalls  to  Ernst  that  Barbarossa  dissolved 
his  own  marriage  and  Ludwig  der  Bayer  that  of  his  son.  The  second 
statement  is  incorrect;  not  Kaiser  Ludwig's  son,  but  his  future  daughter- 
in-law  (Margaretha  of  Karnten,  known  as  'Maultasch'),  was  divorced  by 
him  from  her  first  husband.  It  may  seem  curious  that  Hebbel,  who, 
only  a  few  scenes  back,  had  referred  to  the  same  Margaretha,  should 
have  made  this  slip,  but  Hebbel  considered  a  few  anachronisms  added 
to  the  '  naturalness '  of  an  historical  drama1. 

As  regards  the  question  of  the  divorce  itself,  Hebbel  again  follows 
Mannert,  who  states  (p.  326)  as  a  certainty :  '  Kaiser  Ludwig  unterzog 
sich  dem  Geschafte  selbst....Er  hatte  gehandelt  nach  romischem  Rechte 
als  Kaiser,'  and  quotes  among  other  examples  of  such  a  divorce  the 
identical  one  cited  by  Hebbel :  '  Friedrich  I  hatte  sich  von  seiner  ersten 
Gemahlin  geschieden.'  Falckenstein,  on  the  other  hand,  as  usual  states 
both  sides  of  the  question  (p.  279)  and  favours  the  view  that  the  Church 
also  sanctioned  the  decree. 

Act  iv,  sc.  4 :  In  Ernst's  second  interview  with  Preising  there  are 
two  other  passages  which  show  the  influence  of  Mannert.  (1)  Ernst 
refers  to  Heinrich  of  Landshut  as  '  Fuchs,'  while  Mannert  lays  emphasis 
on  his  slyness  (p.  434).  (2)  Mannert's  words  '  Entfernung,  Verschlies- 
sen  in  ein  Kloster...fuhrte  nicht  zum  Zwecke;  die  einmal  giiltige 
Ehe  war  gtiltig  bis  zum  Tode  des  einen  Theils'  must  have  been  in 
Hebbel's  mind  when  he  wrote  '  Hier  hilft  kein  Kloster,  nur  der  Tod ! ' 

Act  iv,  sc.  8:  Hebbel  agrees  with  Mannert  (p.  470)  and  differs 
from  the  other  sources  in  stating  that  Albrecht  was  absent  at  a  tourna- 
ment when  Agnes  Bernauer  was  murdered.  Mannert  does  not  mention 

1  Letter  of  Dec.  2,  1858  (Bw.,  vi,  215). 


318 

the  place,  but  Hebbel  no  doubt  chose  Ingolstadt  because  of  its  proximity 
to  Straubing  and  because  he  had  followed  Lipowsky  as  regards  Albert's 
alliance  with  Ludwig  of  Ingolstadt. 

2.    FALCKENSTEIN'S  'GESCHICHTEN  DES  HERZOGTHUMS  BAYERN.' 

This  work  does  not  seem  to  have  influenced  Hebbel's  play  as  much 
as  Mannert's.  With  the  exception  of  a  few  minor  points,  almost  the  only 
scene  where  a  direct  influence  can  be  traced,  is  Ernst's  second  interview 
with  Preising  (Act  iv,  sc.  5).  Falckenstein  (p.  461)  quotes  at  length 
a  passage  from  the  Germania  Princeps,  which  deals  with  the  murder 
of  Agnes  Bernauer.  The  anonymous  author  of  this  work  strongly 
condemns  the  deed  and  points  out  the  cruelty  involved  in  killing  a 
beautiful  and  innocent  girl  (compare  Hebbel,  'aber  es  ist  doch  entsetzlich, 
dass  sie  sterben  soil,  bloss  weil  sie  schon  und  sittsam  war ').  Perhaps, 
he  goes  on  to  say,  she  had  sinned  through  ignorance  and  Albrecht  had 
obtained  her  consent  by  force  (cf.  Hebbel,  Act  v,  sc.  2):  Preising:  '. .  .warum 
willst  Du  einen  Platz  nicht  freiwillig  wieder  aufgeben,  den  Du  doch  nur 
gezwungen  einnahmst  ? '  Agnes :  '  Gezwungen  ?  So  also  wird  meine 
Angst... ausgelegt  ?'  The  writer  then  suggests  that  Agnes  might  have 
been  kidnapped,  her  place  of  abode  kept  secret,  and  Albrecht  married  to 
someone  else.  In  the  drama  Preising  proposes  the  very  same  expedient 
to  avoid  the  murder  of  Agnes  and  also  suggests  divorce,  which  as  we 
have  just  seen  may  be  traced  to  Mannert.  It  is  to  be  noted  that,  as 
Falckenstein  does  not  believe  Albrecht  and  Agnes  were  married,  he 
fully  approves  of  the  reasoning  of  the  Germania  Princeps  and  also 
thinks  Albrecht's  marriage  to  another  would  have  been  advisable ;  with 
Hebbel,  of  course,  this  is  impossible  (Ernst :  '  ich  sollte  ihm  das  zweite 
Weib  geben,  so  lange  das  erste  noch  lebte').  Falckenstein  puts  all  the 
blame  on  Ernst's  councillors,  who  ought  to  have  given  their  master 
better  advice  and  considered  the  consequences,  for  Albrecht  might  have 
gone  mad  or  taken  his  life  (cf.  Act  iv,  sc.  4 :  '  Wird  er  nicht  rasen  und 
Hand  an  sich  legen  ? ').  Lipowsky  (p.  Ill)  gives  a  long  quotation  from 
Falckenstein  on  the  death  of  Agnes  Bernauer,  including  the  extract 
from  the  Germania  Princeps,  and  thus  Hebbel  might  have  taken  all 
the  points  noted  above  from  Lipowsky. 

The  very  few  passages  in  the  play  which  can  be  shown  to  have  been 
borrowed  from  Falckenstein  alone  are  given  below;  they  are  neither 
important  nor  conclusive. 

Act  iv,  sc.  2 :     Falckenstein  (p.  453)  refers  to  the  divergence  of 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  319 

opinion  on  the  death  of  Herzog  Wilhelm's  wife ;  some  chronicles  record 
that  she  died  very  shortly  after  her  husband,  others  that  she  contracted  a 
second  marriage.  In  the  drama  the  duchess  dies  at  the  same  time  as 
her  husband,  for  Hebbel  wished  Agnes  Bernauer  to  appear  responsible 
for  the  deaths  of  several  people. 

Act  iv,  sc.  3  :  The  Germania  Princeps,  quoted  again  by  Falckenstein 
(p.  460),  lays  special  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  Ernst  consulted  his 
counsellors  '  die  denn  einmiithig  dahin  stimmeten,  er  konne  gar  wohl 
die  Bernauerin  aus  dem  Wege  raumen  lassen.'  Perhaps  we  have  here 
the  germ  of  Hebbel's  '  rechtliches  Gutachten  rechtskundiger  Manner1,' 
especially  as  Adlzreiter's  defence  of  the  murder  is  mentioned  and  in  the 
drama  he  is  one  of  the  three  lawyers  who  draw  up  the  condemnation. 

Act  v,  sc.  6 :  Hebbel's  account  of  Agnes's  death  seems  to  point  to 
another  source,  for  he  differs  in  the  description  of  her  execution  from 
all  the  authorities.  Falckenstein  as  usual  gives  several  versions  (p.  460) 
and  one  of  these,  namely,  the  casting  of  Agnes  from  a  bridge,  comes 
nearest  to  Hebbel.  There  is,  however,  no  mention  of  the  '  Horiger '  who 
plays  such  a  prominent  part  in  Hebbel's  version. 

Act  v,  sc.  10 :  Falckenstein  (p.  463)  states  more  definitely  than 
Mannert  that  Ernst  allowed  Albrecht  to  rule  over  a  great  part  of  the 
dukedom  during  his  lifetime.  This  may  have  influenced  the  abdication 
of  Ernst  in  the  drama,  which  is  strictly  speaking  unhisfcorical,  but  it 
should  also  be  remembered  that  as  far  back  as  1845,  when  Hebbel  was 
considering  the  kingship  in  many  aspects,  he  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  any  violation  of  the  kingly  power  must  necessarily  be  followed  by 
abdication.  So  probably  Ernst's  abdication  is  not  to  be  looked  for  in 
any  of  the  sources,  but  is  an  inherent  part  of  the  '  idea.' 

II.     CHRONICLES  OF  AUGSBURG. 

On  October  15,  1851,  whilst  engaged  in  the  composition  of  Agnes 
Bernauer,  Hebbel  made  notes  in  his  diary  from  P.  von  Stetten's  Ge- 
schichte  der  Stadt  Augsburg,  and  it  can  be  shown  that  he  also  consulted 
Werlich's  translation  of  Welser's  Chronica  der  Stadt  Augsburg.  As 
was  to  be  expected,  Hebbel  has  used  these  books  mainly  for  the  first 
two  acts  of  the  drama,  where  the  scene  is  laid  in  Augsburg  and  he 
required  local  colouring. 

On  a  careful  perusal  one  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  by  the  fact  that 
Hebbel  has  really  borrowed  very  little  from  the  wealth  of  detail  to  be 

1  Cf.  Briefwechsel,  edited  by  Bamberg,  n,  206. 


320          The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  'Agnes  Bernauer ' 

found  in  the  chronicles ;  thus,  for  example,  absolutely  no  use  is  made  of 
the  lengthy  and  minute  description  of  Augsburg.  It  will  be  seen  that 
Hebbel  has  merely  taken  a  few  facts  from  the  history  of  the  town ;  he 
could  get  no  additional  information  about  Agnes  Bernauer,  for  Werlich 
does  not  mention  her,  and  Stetten  relates  her  death  in  a  very  few  words. 

As  Stetten  and  Werlich  in  many  cases  record  exactly  the  same  facts, 
I  have  first  noted  those  passages  which  may  have  been  influenced  by 
one  or  the  other  writer. 

'  Personennamen.'  Werlich  and  Stetten  often  refer  to  Marschall 
Pappenheim  (thus  Werlich,  p.  168 ;  Stetten,  p.  164)  and  to  Hermann 
Nordlinger,  Btirgermeister  of  Augsburg  (Werlich,  pp.  164,  165;  Stetten, 
p.  120);  also  the  Ritter  Haydeck  mentioned  by  Hebbel  in  Act  in, 
sc.  10  and  Act  v,  sc.  8,  was  evidently  suggested  by  Rudolf  von  Heydeck, 
referred  to  by  both  Werlich  (p.  151)  and  Stetten  (p.  144). 

Act  i,  sc.  151:  'Seit  jenein  unseligen  Katharinen- Abend,  wo  wir  den 
Pobel  mit  in  den  Rath  aufnehmen  mussten2.'  Both  Werlich  and  Stetten 
give  a  full  account  of  what  occurred  on  October  21;  1368,  when  the 
'  Ziinfte '  forced  the  patricians  to  admit  them  to  a  share  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  town. 

As  regards  the  Emperor's  assent  to  the  'Zunftbrief  ('Kaiser  und 
Reich  hatten  uns  besser  beistehen  sollen'),  Hebbel  has  followed  Werlich 
alone  (p.  115:  '  Keyser  Carl  hat  keine  einzige  Einred  gehabt'),  for 
Stetten  relates  (p.  117)  that  the  consent  of  the  Emperor  was  obtained 
with  great  difficulty  and  only  after  one  embassy  had  been  unsuccessful. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  conclusion  of  the  same  speech  ('  Wir  hatten 
genug  zu  tun,  dass  wir  uns  nur  nicht  selbst  unter  die  Metzger  und 
Handschuhmacher  aufnehmen  lassen... mussten')  is  taken  from  Stetten, 
pp.  115 — 116  ('Die  Handwercker  verlangten  von  den  Geschlechtern,  dass 
sie  sich  in  ihre  Ziinfften  begeben,  und  also  der  Geschlechters-Stand  und 
Gesellschafft  vollig  aufgehoben  werden  solle;...allein  der  meiste  Theil 
wollte  sich  durchaus  hiezu  nicht  bequemen,  und  lieber  die  Stadt  meiden'). 
This  exf  Wple  is  very  typical  of  Hebbel's  use  of  the  sources :  he  does 
not  keep  to  one  even  for  a  single  incident,  but  selects  from  several  as 
suits  his  purpose.  Thus,  half  the  Biirgermeister's  speech  is  taken  from 
Werlich  and  half  from  Stetten. 

Act  II,  sc.  3  and  8 :  Concerning  Caspar  Bernauer's  reference  to  the 
Vehmgericht,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Stetten  and  Werlich  often  mention 

1  Werlich,  p.  165,  and  Stetten,  p.  154,  refer  to  the  '  Tantz-Hauss '  where  the  scene  of 
Act  i,  scene  15,  is  laid. 

2  This  incident  was  doubtless  inserted  to  depict  the  disintegration  of  society  at  the  close 
of  the  Middle  Ages. 


AGNES    LOWENSTEIN  321 

'  das  heimliche  Westphalische  Fehm-Gericht ' ;  for  example,  Stetten 
(p.  161),  immediately  after  the  short  notice  of  the  death  of  Agnes 
Bernauer,  relates  that  thirty-two  citizens  of  Augsburg  were  appointed 
'  Schoffen  und  Richter  des...Fehm-Gerichts.' 

Act  in,  sc.  7  :  Albrecht  speaks  of  the  view  from  the  windows  of  the 
castle  of  Vohburg  as  '  ein  wahrer  Lug  in's  Land.'  It  is  interesting  to 
notice  that  both  Werlich  and  Stetten1  repeatedly  refer  to  the  tower 
near  Augsburg  named  on  account  of  its  height  'Lug  ins  Land.' 

INDEBTEDNESS  TO  WERLICH  ALONE. 

I  have  only  been  able  to  find  two  passages  where  the  influence  of 
Werlich  apart  from  Stetten  can  be  traced. 

Act  I,  sc.  16:  Frauenhoven :  '1st  es  wahr,...dass  der  Boden  von 
Augsburg  keine  Ratten  duldet?'  Bur  germeister :  '  Gewiss...Das  war 
schon  so  zu  den  Zeiten  des  Drusus.'  In  the  introduction  to  his  work, 
in  which  he  describes  Augsburg,  Werlich  (p.  1)  uses  exactly  the  same 
words  ('der  Bodem  [von  Augspurg]... duldet  keine  Ratten');  Werlich 
(p.  8)  and  Stetten  (p.  7)  both  mention  Drusus. 

Act  iv,  sc.  2 :  A  peasant  brings  Duke  Ernst  a  huge  ear  of  corn. 
Werlich  (p.  165)  notes  '  eine  grosse  Wolfeile  im  Getreydt '  in  the  year 
1427. 

INDEBTEDNESS  TO  STETTEN  ALONE. 

'  Personennamen.'  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  the  name  '  Knip- 
peldollinger '  in  any  of  the  sources,  but  Stetten  (p.  137)  speaks  of 
a  certain  Stadtvogt  Dollinger. 

Act  I,  sc.  18 :  The  Bin-germeister  tells  how  his  cousin  Juliana 
Peutinger  when  only  four  years  old  welcomed  the  Emperor  with  a  Latin 
speech.  Stetten  (p.  258)  also  relates  this  incident,  but  under  the  year 
1504. 

Act  in,  sc.  6  :  Ernst's  reference  to  the  blocking  of  the  Lech — '  dass 
er  uns  von  den  Augsburgern  nicht  wieder  auf  einen  Wink  des  Kaisers 
versperrt  werden  kann,  wie  anno  Neunzehn  bei  den  Bischof  handeln ! ' 
corresponds  exactly  to  Stetten's  version.  He  records  (p.  148)  that  in 
1419  '  hielten  Hertzog  Ernst  und  Wilhelm  von  Bayern...die  Strassen 
gegen  der  Stadt  gesperret.  Dahero  dann  der  Kayser  bewogen  worden, 
den  Augspurgern  zu  befehlen,  dass  sie  den  Lech-Strom  gleichfalls  gegen 
Bayern  schlitzen,  schirmen  und  verschlagen  sollen.'  Werlich  (p.  156) 

1  For  example  Stetten  page  250  and  Werlich  page  167. 
M.  L.  R.  IV.  21 


322          The  Sources  of  Hebbel's  'Agnes  Bernauer' 

has  related  the  incident  in  quite  a  different  manner.  According  to  him 
Ludwig  of  Bavaria  blockaded  the  Lech  against  the  people  of  Augsburg. 

There  remain  only  the  two  passages  from  Stetten,  which  Hebbel 
noted  in  his  diary  on  Oct.  15,  1851. 

(1)  '1418  Zigeuner  zuerst  in  Augsburg.'  In  Act  iv,  sc.  9,  Agnes 
speaks  of  the  gypsies  passing  through  Straubing.  (2)  Hebbel  notes 
the  name  Susanna  Neidhart  and  the  date  1496.  Under  that  year 
Stetten  describes  the  visit  of  Prince  Philip  to  Augsburg,  the  dances  and 
tournaments  given  in  his  honour  and  tells  how  the  prince  danced  with 
the  beautiful  patrician  Susanna  Neidhart.  This  statement  may  have 
influenced  the  last  scenes  of  the  first  act  of  the  drama,  where  Albrecht 
meets  Agnes  at  a  dance. 

One  other  chronicle  must  be  noted  which  seems  only  to  have 
influenced  one  sentence  of  Hebbel's  drama.  This  is  an  anonymous 
translation  of  Veit  Arnpeck's  Chronicon  Boioariae. 

Act  in,  sc.  8:  Albrecht:  'Agnes,  hat  man's  Dir  schon  gesagt,  dass 
der  rothe  Wein,  wenn  Du  ihn  trinkst  durch  den  Alabaster  Deines  Halses 
hindurch  leuchtet,  als  ob  man  ihn  aus  einen  Kristall  in  den  andern 
gosse  ? '  The  translation  of  Arnpeck's  Latin  chronicle  describes  Agnes 
Bernauer  in  very  similar  words,  '  man  sagt,  dass  sie  so  hiibsch  gewesen 
sey,  wann  sie  roten  wein  getrunckhen  hett,  So  hett  man  ihr  den  Wein 
in  der  khel.  hinab  gehen  sehen'  (Freyberg,  p.  174).  A.  Neumann 
(Zeitschrift  fur  deutsche  Philologie,  xxx,  p.  250)  has  shown  that  this 
passage  was  not  contained  in  the  original  Latin,  but  was  added  by  the 
translator,  and  S.  Riezler1  mentions  that  this  was  a  favourite  trait  for  the 
delineation  of  female  beauty  in  the  middle  ages.  As  there  seems  to  be 
no  other  point  of  resemblance  in  this  chronicle  to  Hebbel's  play  and  as 
the  passage  referred  to  occurs  immediately  after  the  mention  of  Agnes's 
burial,  it  is  very  probable  that  Hebbel  merely  read  the  short  account  of 
her  on  p.  174. 

AGNES  LOWENSTEIN. 

LONDON. 

1  S.  Riezler,  Untersuchungen  ttber  Agnes  Bernauer  und  die  baierischen  Herzoge  (Svtz- 
ungsber.  der  Miinchener  Akademie,  xv,  1885,  p.  289). 

(To  be  continued.) 


THE   DIALECT   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE 
NORTHUMBRIAN  GENEALOGIES. 

THE  text  of  the  Northumbrian  Genealogies  is  edited  by  Dr  Sweet 
in  The  Oldest  English  Texts  (pp.  167 — 171).  In  his  introductory  remarks 
the  editor  quotes  the  following  information  about  the  MS.  from  the 
letter-press  accompanying  Plate  165  of  the  publications  of  the  Palseo- 
graphical  Society  (Part  X,  1880),  which  gives  a  facsimile  of  part  of  the 
MS.  Additions  have  been  made  to  the  lists  in  later  times,  but  an 
examination  of  the  portions  due  to  the  first  hand  proves  that  the  MS.  was 
written  between  the  years  811  and  814.  The  last  name  in  the  list  of 
popes,  by  the  first  hand,  is  that  of  Leo  III,  who  died  in  816 ;  the  last 
king  is  Coenuulf  of  Mercia  who  died  in  819  ;  and  among  the  latest  of 
the  bishops  in  the  different  dioceses  are  some  who  succeeded  about  the 
year  811,  and  others  who  died  in  814.  The  fact  that  the  latest  recorded 
succession  among  the  kings  is  one  of  the  house  of  Mercia,  points  to  that 
kingdom  as  the  part  of  England  where  the  MS.  was  written.  The 
character  of  the  writing  confirms  this  view,  being  of  the  same  school  as 
that  of  the  Mercian  charters  of  the  same  period.  But  the  editor  re- 
marks :  '  The  fact  of  the  royal  genealogies  beginning  with  Northumbria 
is  an  equally  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  assumption  of  a 
Northumbrian  scribe,  which  is  further  confirmed  by  their  being 
preceded  by  a  work  of  the  Northumbrian  Bede,  and  the  want  of 
Northumbrian  charters  makes  the  evidence  of  handwriting  doubtful.' 
In  the  following  article  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  solve  the  problem 
of  the  text's  place  of  origin,  by  inquiring  how  far  the  scribe  has  modified 
the  forms  of  names  drawn  from  four  dialectal  areas,  Kentish,  Saxon, 
Mercian  and  Northumbrian,  in  the  direction  of  his  own  dialect. 

I.     The  Kentish  group  of  names  (1—4,  10—11,  111—116). 

(a)  In  the  Kt.  names  the  symbols  ce  (originally  for  low-front- 
wide)  and  e  (orig.  for  mid-front-wide)  are  not  confused  as  is  commonly 
the  case  in  nearly  all  Kt.  charters1 ;  ce  corresponds  to  W.  Gmc.  a  in  iaen- 
4,  -daeg  115,  and  e  to  W.  Gmc.  e  in  -helm  10,  ueg- 115,  geb- 10,  to  W.  Gmc. 

1  Weightman,  in  Eng.  Stud.,  xxxv,  387  ff. 

21—2 


324     Dialect  of  the  Text  of  the  Northumbrian  Genealogies 

a-j  in  ecg-  112,  and  prim.  O.E.  a-i  in  hengest  114.  Nothing  can  be  in- 
ferred from  the  two  forms  eftil-  113  and  ceSil-  112,  as  the  e  of  the  former 
may  be  an  unrounded  form  of  at.  As  early  as  the  end  of  the  eighth 
century  OB  no  longer  represented  a  pure  low-front-wide  sound  in  Kt., 
but  a  sound  nearly  mid-front-wide,  under  which  it  was  levelled  during 
the  ninth  century.  Even  in  the  earlier  charters  ce,  $  and  e  are  used 
indiscriminately  for  prim.  Q.E.  OB  and  e,  but  not  to  the  same  extent  as 
in  the  later  charters.  But  the  fact  that  in  these  Kt.  names  ce  and  e  are 
not  used  indiscriminately  for  two  originally  different  sounds,  does  not 
prove  that  the  discrimination  is  due  to  a  scribe  in  whose  dialect  they 
still  possessed  different  phonetic  values.  The  influence  of  traditional 
spelling  would  still  be  felt  in  Kt.  even  had  the  two  sounds  become 
one,  which  was  not  probably  the  case  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  ninth 
century. 

(6)  Prim.  O.E.  ce  (<  W.  Gmc.  a)  is  found  in  ucer- 11,  and  -red  (3). 
The  latter  invariably  forms  the  second  element  of  a  name,  and  always 
contains  e.  It  lost  its  stress  early,  its  vowel  consequently  being 
shortened,  but  not  before  ce  had  been  raised  to  e.  In  the  pure  Kt. 
charters  dated  between  679  and  811  (Sw.  O.E.T.)  we  find  that  e 
represents  prim.  O.E.  OB  29  times,  in  -red  4/4  etc.  (24),  uer-  33/2,  19, 
stret  5/3,  meg-  5/3,  but  g  in  we.r-  33/11  (d.  803),  -r$d  33/10;  ce  (ae)  appears 
three  times  only,  once  for  prim.  O.E.  ce-i  in  -maeri  4/5,  and  twice  for  prim. 
O.E.  OB  lengthened  after  loss  of  g  in  gasn-  34/10  (d.  805).  This  indis- 
criminate use  of  ae,  $  and  e  for  prim.  O.E.  ce  is  only  found  elsewhere  in  the 
Merc,  dialect  of  Ru.1,  where  ce  was  probably  due  to  Saxon  influence. 

(c)  Prim.  O.E.  ce,  e,  i  were  as  a  rule  diphthongised  before  certain 
consonant-combs,  in  pure  Kt.  In  the  first  four  pure  Kt.  charters  there 
is  no  example  of  the  'breaking'  of  ce  before  £-combs.,  or  of  e  before 
r-combs.,  the  forms  which  occur  being  balth-  6/3,  7/5,"  aid-  4/5,  7/6, 
-uuald  5/5  (2),  -uualh  7/5,  -uualla  7/5,  berht  4/4  etc.  (14),  hern-  4/6,  5/6. 
The  diphthong  from  prim.  O.E.  ce  before  r-combs.  is  variously  represented 
as  a,  ae,  aea  in  -hard  4/5,  6,  7/5,  -haerd  5/6,  -haeard  6/3,  -iaeard  6/4. 

In  the  later  charters  (770-811).  (1)  ea  from  prim.  O.E.  ce  before 
J-combs.  is  found  in  uuealh-  8/5,  34/4,  ealh-  33/13,  35/14,  eald-  34/4, 
and  ea  from  ce  before  r-combs.  in  eard-  8/1  etc.  (4),  -heard  33/1  etc.  (15), 
ieard  3/4,  geard  35/5,  13 ;  but  a  in  alh-  33/5  etc.  (4),  aid  33/3  etc.  (4), 
-bald  33/11,  19,  -wald  34/4,  -waling  35/7,  and  -hard  33/18. 

(2)  eo  from  O.E.  e  before  r-combs.  occurs  in  beorn-  32/2  etc.  (5), 
beorcol  33/21,  but  e  in  -berht  8/4  etc.  always.  That  berht  never  appears 


O.    T.    WILLIAMS  325 

as  beorht  is  probably  due  to  an  early  fronting  of  the  comb.  rh.  The  form 
-bericht  found  in  the  Stowe  MS.  of  charter  5/4  (d.  700  or  715)  seems  to 
favour  this  view. 

(3)  Prim.  O.E.  i  before  r-  and  A-combs.  appears  as  i  in  irmin-  4/5, 
uuiht-  5/1,  5  in  the  earlier  charters,  and  as  i  in  uuiht  8/5,  33/20,  io  in 
wioht  34/7  in  the  later. 

In  the  Kt.  names  in  our  text  diphthongs  due  to  '  breaking '  are,  with 
two  exceptions,  distributed  in  the  same  way. 

(1)  a  is  written  before  Z-combs.  in  aid-  10,  -wald  2,  -bald  113, 
and  ea  before  r-combs.  in  eard-  11,  -heard  4. 

(2)  eo  in  beorn-  11,  but  e  in  berht  (always)  3  etc.,  and  ercon-  112. 

(3)  i  before  ht  in  wiht-  115,  but  iu  before  rm  in  iurmen-  114. 

The  two  exceptional  forms  are  ercon-  and  iurmen-.  As  '  smoothing ' 
did  not  take  place  in  Kt.,  ercon  must  be  regarded  as  a  Merc,  or  North, 
form  of  prim.  O.E.  *eorcon.  In  the  Moore-MS.  of  Bede's  History 
(O.E.T.,  131  ff.)  it  appears  as  earcon-  148  etc.  (6),  ercon-  236  etc.  (4).  In 
the  L.V.  names  (O.E.T.,  153  ff.)  it  only  occurs  once,  and  there  appears  as 
ercin-.  In  the  North,  dialect,  but  more  particularly  in  North-North., 
eo  due  to  '  breaking '  was  lowered  to  ea  (cea  ?)  which  in  a  '  smoothed ' 
form  appears  as  e  (ce),  whence  earcon-  and  ercon-  in  B.H.  Again  the 
diphthong  iu  is  not  found  in  Kt.  and  its  presence  in  a  Kt.  name 
is  probably  due  to  a  non-Kt.  scribe.  In  the  North,  dialect  of  L.V.  iu  is 
frequent. 

(d)  The  absence  of  the  diphthongisation  of  e  in  geb-  after  a  front 
g  is  characteristic  of  Kt.,  Merc,  and  North. 

(e)  The  form  diora"  is  pure  Kt.  and  may  be  traced  back  to 
W.Gmc.  eu  or  iu-i,  as  io  came  to  represent  both  w  and  eo  in  late  Kt. 
The  name  also  occurs  in  Sax.-Kt.  charters  as  diora  25/11  and  diara  30/19, 
both  forms  showing  Kt.  influence.     In  L.V.  it  appears  as  diori,  in  which 
prim.  O.E.  w  (<  W.  Gmc.  iu-i)  is  preserved. 

Thus  the  only  two  exceptional  forms  in  the  Kt.  group  of  names  are 
probably  due  to  a  Northumbrian'  scribe,  the  remaining  forms  being 
preserved  unaltered. 

II.     The  Saxon  group  of  names  (5—8,  12—25,  45—50). 

(a)  In  the  Sax.  names  there  is  no  instance  of  the  '  breaking '  of 
prim.  O.E.  ce  before  £-combs.;  it  appears  as  a  in  alh-  22,  aid-  24,  50, 
-wald  6,  24,  -bald  7,  21,  -walk  7.  This  might  be  regarded  as  being  due 


326     Dialect  of  the  Text  of  the  Northumbrian  Genealogies 

to  a  non-Sax,  scribe,  seeing  that  in  pure  W.S.,  at  least,  prim.  O.E.  a?  >  ea 
before  /-combs.  But  on  turning  to  other  Saxon  texts  we  find  that  a  is 
the  rule,  and  ea  only  the  exception.  In  the  first  early  Sax.  charters 
(O.E.T.,  1—3)  dated  692-778,  in  a  later  charter  dated  847,  and  in  the 
Saxon  Genealogies  (O.E.T.,  179),  the  MS.  of  which  dates  from  the 
second  half  of  the  ninth  century,  we  find  a  in  -uald  cht.  2/1,  bald-  3/8, 
alh-  20/22,  24,  -wald  S.G.  179/5,  -bald  179/7,  22,  -uuald  chts.  1/6,  2/1, 
-bald  1/7,  3/12  but  ea  in  ealh-  S.G.  179/3  only.  There  is  therefore  no 
reason  for  attributing  a  in  our  text  to  a  Merc,  or  North,  scribe.  Besides, 
in  the  second  elements  of  compound  words  ea  >  a  (o)  even  in  pure  W.S. 
through  want  of  stress. 

(6)  In  the  forms  ercon-  6  and  -haeh  6  (from  the  names  of  two 
East-Saxon  bishops)  'smoothing'  of  eo  and  ea  has  apparently  taken 
place.  In  the  only  two  East-Saxon  charters  edited  in  O.E.T.,  we  find 
the  three  forms  ercn-  1/6  (d.  692-3),  -sex-  1/1,  and  -SQX-,  all  showing 
'  smoothing,'  eo  >  e  before  re,  and  ea  >  e,  $  before  c(s).  One  is,  therefore, 
justified  in  assuming  that  the  forms  ercon-  and  -haeh  are  pure  East- 
Saxon.  The  development  of  'smoothing'  in  this  Saxon  patois  may 
have  been  due  to  Merc,  influence.  In  a  Kt.  charter  d.  803,  ceftelhaeh 
33/6,  the  name  of  a  Mercian  keeps  its  pure  Merc.  form.  In  L.V.  -heah 
appears  as  -hech  68,  and  -haeg  372. 

The  preservation  of  io  in  uuiohthun,  the  name  of  a  South-Saxon 
bishop,  is  probably  due  to  traditional  spelling.  The  same  bishop's 
name  appears  as  uuihthun  in  a  Kt.  charter  (33  d.  803).  Before  ht,  io 
had  become  i  in  most  dialects  (in  W.S.  wio  >  wu)  by  the  beginning  of 
the  ninth  century.  Uuict  or  uuiht  is  always  the  spelling  in  L.V. 
and  B.H. 

(c)  The  continental  forms  agil-  17  and  leutherius  18  are  left 
unaltered.     In  L.V.  agil-  is  always  egil-. 

(d)  The  spelling  oe  (<  o-i)  in   coen-  7  is   not   due   to  a  non- 
Saxon  scribe,  for  it  occurs  in  the  two  East-Saxon  charters  mentioned 
under  II.  b. 

There  is  therefore  no  form  among  the  Saxon  names,  which  cannot 
be  shown  to  be  characteristic  of  other  Saxon  texts. 

III.     The  Mercian  group  of  names  (26—41,  91—110,  117—121). 

The  Merc,  names  exhibit  on  the  whole  the  same  developments 
as  the  forms  which  occur  in  Merc,  charters  (O.E.T.,  9 — 16,  46 — 8). 


O.    T.    WILLIAMS  327 

(a)  Prim.  O.E.  ce  (<  W.  Gmc.  a  isolatively  treated)  remains  in 
cesc-  28,  caed-  108,  as  also  in  iaen-  cht.  46/1,  and  aet,  waes,  ftcet,  Sees 
etc.  47  (d.  846). 

(6)  Prim.  O.E.  ce  (<  W.  Gmc.  a-i)  is  spelt  ae  and  e  in  cefiil-  29,  91, 
eftil-  118,  uuceren-  40.  The  forms  aethil-,  $$il-,  edil-  cht.  9  (d.  736)  also 
show  this  same  confusion  of  symbols.  In  the  same  way  ae  and  e  are 
used  in  the  forms  aelf-  30,  cueld-  108,  for  prim.  O.E.  ce  before  I  -f  com- 
binations -ft.  In  chts.  13/5,  15/6,  and  16/5  aelf-  only  is  found. 

(c)  W.  Gmc.  d  which  was  fronted  to  e  in  Merc,  is  found  in  uuer- 
30,  94  and  -red  40.    The  first  form  is  also  spelt  uucer-  94.    The  charters 
have  e  in  uer-  15/6,  16/5,  -red  10/1  (red),  3,  46/6,  legeo  10/2,  and  werun 
(pret.  pi.)  48/17,  but  ce  in   -fluid  13/5.      In  the  form  radS-  47/3  ae 
represents  e  (<  o-i).     In  the  Merc,  dialect  of  Ru.1  also  prim.  O.E.  ce 
(<  W.  Gmc.  a)  is  written  ae  and  e.     In  North,  texts  the  symbols  are 
never  confused. 

(d)  Ceadda  (beside  caed-)  with   the  diphthongisation  of  prim. 
O.E.  ce  after  front  c  is  a  regular  Merc,  development  as  is  shown  by 
similar  forms  in  Ru.1 

(e)  In  the  following  forms  the  diphthongs  have  been  'smoothed' 
(1)  ea  >  ae  before  c(s)  in  saex-  35  etc.  (3),  (2)  ea  >  ae  before  g(h)  in 
-laeg  95,  (3)  eo  >  e  before  rh  in  berht  24  etc.  (14),  (4)  io  >  i  before  h  in 
uiht-  95,  (5)  io  >  I  before  h  in  -uuih  98.     In  the  charters  the  forms 
with  diphthongs  are  numerous  (1)  ea  >  ae  before  c(s)  in  saex-  11/2 
(d.  767),  and  e  before  rg  in  hergae  11/2,  (2)  ea  remains  before  h  in  -leak, 
-lea  47/2,  (3)  eo  >  e  before  c(s)  in  sex  47/15,  before  re  in  bercol  9/7,  and 
before  rh  in  berht  (50).     In  beorg  the  diphthong  remains.     (4)  lo>l 
before  h  in  uuiht-  (4),  and  bituih  11/2,  but  remains  in  uuioht  (2)  and 
utieoht  (1). 

(/)  In  Merc,  back-umlaut  was  more  fully  developed  than  in  the 
other  dialects.  In  these  names,  however,  we  find  al(u)-  98  and  waftol- 
95,  by  the  side  of  heafto-  28,  headda  36,  and  frio/S(u)-  110.  In  the  same 
way  heafto-  and  AaSo-  occur  together  in  the  charters. 

The  only  non-Merc,  forms  are  -geot  94  etc.  (5),  eost-  117,  and  earner 
93,  which  are  probably  due  to  a  North,  scribe.  In  the  South-North, 
dialect  of  L.V.  and  Ru.2  W.  Gmc.  au  apparently  became  eo,  whence  -geot 
for  W.S.  geat  and  eost-  for  east,  while  prim.  O.E.  e  before  'breaking' 
combs,  became  ea  regularly  in  North-North,  and  sporadically  in  South- 
North.,  whence  earner  for  eomer  <  * eoh-mcer-. 


328    Dialect  of  the  Text  of  the  Northumbrian  Genealogies 

IV.     The  Northumbrian  group  of  names  (42—44,  51—69,  72—90). 

(a)  In  North,  prim.  O.E.  ce  remains,  as  here  in  blaec-  90,  -daeg 
76  ;  eftil-  (3)  may  be  another  form  of  aeSil-  (2)  and  not  of  oeftil-  (1).  In 
L.V.  e6il-  is  the  usual  form. 

(6)  W.  Gmc.  a  regularly  gives  e  in  North,  as  in  sueb-  75,  bel-  82, 
and  -red.  The  symbol  ce  is  not  found  at  all. 

(c)  In  the  South-North,  dialect,  as  we  have  seen,  W.  Gmc.  au 
became  eo  (ceo  ?).     In  these  names  ean-  3,  ead-  (3),  eat-  (1),  frea-  (2), 
and  eata  (3)  are  spelt  with  ea,  but  eota  (1),  and  -geot  (2)  with  eo.     In 
the  L.V.  names,  also,  ea  is   far  more  numerous  than  eo.     It   is   only 
in  Ru.2,  that  eo  becomes  the  regular  symbol. 

(d)  In  North,  w  (<  Gmc.  eu-i)  was  not  levelled  under  eo  (<  Gmc. 
eu)  as  in  Merc,  and  W.S.,  hence  io  in  Hod-  87  is  correct  North. 

(e)  In  peht-  68(2),  and  -berht  (11)  the  diphthongs  have  been 
'smoothed'  as  in  regular  North.   In  the  form  -wio-  (<  *wih)  79  h  perhaps 
disappeared  before  the  '  smoothing '  period. 

(f)  The  forms  hec&o-,  bead(u)-,  friofto-  (2)  show  back-umlaut  of 
prim.  O.E.  w  and  i,  but  in  alusa  and  uestor-  the  diphthong  is  wanting. 

All  these  forms  are  therefore  regular  North. 

The  results  yielded  by  this  analysis  of  the  forms  of  the  names  are  : 

(a)  The  scribe  preserved  the  native  dialectal  forms  of  most  of  the 
names  unmodified. 

(6)  The  North,  forms  -geot,  eost-  and  earner  in  Merc,  names  point 
to  Northumbria  as  the  locality  where  the  list  was  compiled. 

(c)  The  theory  of  the  North,  authorship  of  the  list  is  corroborated, 
firstly  by  the  occurrence  of  the  diphthong  iu  in  one  Kt.  name,  and  of 
the  '  smoothing '  of  eo  in  another,  secondly  by  the  retention  of  w  in  the 
Kt.  name  diora,  and  in  the  Merc,  name  crioda,  and  thirdly  by  the 
normal  character  of  the  North,  names. 

O.  T.  WILLIAMS. 
BANGOR. 


DRUMMOND   OF   HAWTHORNDEN  AND   THE 
POETS   OF   THE   PLEIADE. 

IN  an  article  on  The  Scottish  Sonneteers  and  the  French  Poets,  in  the 
Modern  Language  Review  (Oct.,  1907),  I  showed  that  Drummond  of 
Hawthornden  had  borrowed  the  matter  of  a  large  number  of  his  sonnets 
from  those  of  the  French  poet  Desportes1.  I  was  then  under  the 
impression  that,  in  spite  of  his  acquaintance  with  the  works  of  several 
other  French  poets  of  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
Drummond  did  not  appear  to  have  been  directly  influenced  by  them. 
However  a  closer  investigation  has  established  the  fact  that  the  Scottish 
poet  likewise  drew  on  the  works  of  more  than  one  poet  of  the  Ple"iade. 
In  view  of  Drummond's  debt  to  Desportes,  I  could  not  persuade  myself 
that  he  owed  nothing  to  Ronsard  in  particular.  I  have  accordingly 
gone  through  again,  and  carefully  compared  his  sonnets  with  those  of 
the  chief  of  the  Pleiade,  and  although  the  Scotchman  naturally  proceeds 
with  even  more  than  usual  wariness,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  several 
of  his  sonnets  present  refashionings  of  certain  sonnets  of  his  famous  pre- 
decessor, whose  works  were  well  known  to  Drummond,  the  Amours,  the 
Franciade,  the  Hymnes  and  other  of  his  works  figuring  among  the  lists 
of  books  read  which  Drummond  was  wont  to  draw  up  between  1606  and 
1614. 

Sonnet  xm  reproduces,  with  some  variations  in  the  phraseology, 
Sonnet  Liv  of  Amours,  I : 

O  sacred  blush,  impurpling  cheek's  pure      O  doux  parler  dont  les  mots  doucereux 

skies 
With  crimson  wings  which  spread  thee      Sont  engraves  au  fond  de  ma  memoire ! 

like  the  morn ; 

1  It  may  be  added  that  the  opening  lines  of  Sonnet  xn  of  The  Second  Part  of  Drum- 
mond's  Poems  are  translated  from  the  fifth  sonnet  of  Desportes  Regrets  Funebres  sur  la 
Mart  de  Diane,  aud  that  the  piece  included  in  the  Miscellanies  under  the  rubric  Regret  is 
an  adaptation,  in  a  different  form,  of  the  twenty-third  sonnet  of  Cleonice  (ed.  Michiels, 
p.  190). 


330 


Drummond  and  the  Poets  of  the  Pleiade 


O  bashful  look,  sent  from  those  shiniug      O  front,  d' Amour  le  trofee  et  la  gloire, 

eyes, 
Which,   though    cast    down    on    earth,       0  doux  sourcis,  6  baisers  savoureux ! 

couldst  heaven  adorn  ; 
0  tongue,  in  which  most  luscious  nectar 


lies, 


O  cheveux  d'or,  6  coustaux  plantureux 


That  can  at  once  both  bless  and  make      De  lis,  d'ceillets,  de  porphyre  et  d'yvoire! 

forlorn ; 

Dear  coral  lip,  which  beauty  beautifies,      0  feux  jumeaux,  d'ou  le  ciel  me  fit  boire 
That  trembling  stood  ere  that  her  words      A  si  longs  traits  le  venin  amoureux  ! 

were  born ; 
And  you  her  words,  words,  no,  but  golden          0  vermeillons !   6  perlettes  encloses ! 

chains, 
Which  did  captive  mine  ears,  ensnare      O  diamants !   6  lis  pourpres  de  roses ! 

my  soul, 
Wise   image  of    her   mind,   mind   that      O  chant  qui  peut  les  plus  durs  emouvoir, 


contains 
A  power,  all  power  of  senses  to  control ; 


Et  dont  1'accent  dans  les  ames  demeure. 


Ye  all  from  love  dissuade  so  sweetly      Eh !     dea !     beaute*s,    reviendra   jamais 


me, 


1'heure 


That  I  love  more,  if  more  my  love      Qu'entre  mes  bras  je  vous  puisse  ravoir? 
could  be. 


Sonnet  xxxvn  ('  Of  Cytherea's  birds,  that  milk-white  pair ')  is 
clearly  suggested  by  a  similar  composition  on  the  same  theme  in 
Ronsard's  Amours,  II,  No.  LXII  ('Que  dis-tu,  que  fais-tu,  pensive 
tourterelle  ? '). 

The  beautiful  Sonnet  XLVI  offers  a  good  example  of  how  Drummond 
could  transform  a  colourless  canvas  into  a  glowing  picture : 


Alexis,  here   she  stay'd  ;   among   these  Voicy  le  bois  que  ma  saincte  Angelette 

pines, 

Sweet  hermitress,  she  did  alone  repair ;      Sur  le  printemps  anima  de  son  chant ; 
Here  did  she  spread  the  treasure  of  her      Voicy  les  fleurs  ou  son  pied  va  marchant, 

hair, 
More  rich  than  that  brought  from  the      Lorsque,  pensive,  elle  s'ebat  seulette; 

Colchian  mines. 

She  set  her  by  these  musked  eglantines,          lo,  voicy  la  pree  verdelette 
The  happy  place  the  print  seems  yet  to      Qui  prend  vigueur  de  sa  main  la  touchant, 

bear; 
Her  voice  did  sweeten  here  thy  sugar'd      Quand  pas  a  pas,  pillarde,  va  cherchant 

lines, 
To  which  winds,  trees,  beasts,  birds,  did      Le  bel  email  de  1'herbe  nouvelette. 

lend  their  ear. 
Me  here  she  first   perceived,  and  here          Icy  chanter,  Ik  pleurer  je  la  vy 

a  morn 
Of  bright  carnations  did  o'erspread  her      Icy  sourire,  et  Ik  je  fu  ravy 

face; 
Here  did  she  sigh,  here  first  my  hopes      De  ses  beaux  yeux  par  lesquels  je  des-vie; 


Icy  s'asseoir,  la  je  la  vy  danser : 


were  born, 
And    I   first  got  a  pledge  of  promis'd 

grace : 

But  ah !  what  served  it  to  be  happy  so,      Sus  le  mestier  d'un  si  vague  penser 
Sith  passed  pleasures  double  but  new      Amour  ourdit  les  trames  de  ma  vie. 

woe? 


L.    E.    KASTNER 


331 


This  indeed  is  the  best  kind  of  imitation,  the  imitation  or  rather 
assimilation  of  the  kind  the  Ple"iade  preached,  but  which  they  did  not 
always  practise. 

The  indebtedness  of  Drummond  to  Ronsard  is  further  illustrated  by 
Sonnet  XLVIII,  which  reproduces,  with  certain  variations,  Sonnet  xn  of 
A  mours  Diverses : 


Hair,  precious  hair  which  Midas'  hand 
did  strain, 

Part  of  the  wreath  of  gold  that  crowns 
these  brows 

Which  winter's  whitest  white  in  white- 
ness stain, 

And  lily,  by  Eridan's  bank  that  grows ; 

Hair,  fatal   present,  which  first  caus'd 

my  woes, 
When  loose  ye  hang  like  Danae's  golden 

rain, 
Sweet  nets,  which  sweetly  do  all  hearts 

enchain, 
Strings,  deadly  strings,  with  which  Love 

bends  his  bows, 
How   are   ye   hither  come?   tell  me,  0 

hair, 
Dear  armelet,  for  what   thus   were  ye 

given? 
I  know  a  badge  of  bondage  I  you  wear, 

Yet    hair,   for    you,    0   that    I   were   a 

heaven ! 
Like   Berenice's   lock  that   ye  might 

shine, 
But  brighter  far,  about  this  arm  of 

mine. 


Doux  cheveux,  doux   present  de  ma 

douce  maistresse, 
Doux  liens  qui  liez  ma  douce  liberte", 

Doux  filets  oil  je  suis  doucement  arreste, 

Qui    pourriez    adoucir  d'un    Scythe    la 

rudesse ; 
Cheveux,  vous  ressemblez  a  ceux  de 

la  princesse, 
Qui   eurent   pour  leur  grace   un    astre 

merite ; 
Cheveux   dignes   d'un   temple  et   d'im- 

mortalite, 
Et  d'estre  consacrez  a  Ve"nus  la  deesse. 

Je  ne  cesse,  cheveux,  pour  mon  mal 

appaiser, 
De    vous    voir    et    toucher,    baiser    et 

rebaiser, 
Vous  parfumer  de  muse,  d'ambre  gris  et 

de  b&me 
Et  de  vos  noauds  crespez  tout  le  col 

m'enserrer, 
Afiri    que,   prisonnier,    je    vous    puisse 

asseurer 
Que  les  liens  du  col  sont  les  liens  de 

Fame. 


Again  the  sonnet  entitled  An  Epitaph  of  one  named  Margaret  (Ward, 
II,  180)  is  based  on  Amours,  I,  No.  CLXXXIX  ;  the  subject  is  identical, 
and  the  same  allusion  to  the  double  meaning  of  Margaret  is  found. 
A  few  additional  examples  may  be  instanced  from  the  Epigrams. 
Drummond  had  probably  more  than  a  passing  acquaintance  with  the 
poets  of  the  Greek  Anthology.  However,  he  does  not  appear  to  have 
had  recourse  to  them  frequently  or  even  directly.  In  reference  to 
Drummond's  epigram,  entitled  The  Trojan  Horse  (Poems,  I,  149), 
W.  C.  Ward  remarks  that  there  is  an  epigram  on  this  topic  by 
Antiphilus  of  Byzantium  (Anth.  Pal.,  II,  30),  but  that  it  bears  little  or 
no  resemblance  to  Drummond's.  It  has  been  suggested  by  the  same 
writer  that  possibly  the  epigram  on  Cratons  Death  (Poems,  I,  164)  was 
prompted  by  a  like  composition  of  Julianus  the  Egyptian  in  the  same 


332  Drummond  and  the  Poets  of  the  Pleiade 

collection  (Anth.  Pal.,  I,  386),  but  Drummond's  source  is  evidently  the 
following  version  of  the  epigram  of  Julianus  by  Ronsard : 

Amidst  the  waves  profound,  Berteau  le  pescheur  s'est  noye 

Far,  far  from  all  relief,  En  sa  nacelle  poissonniere, 

The     honest     fisher,    Craton,    ah  !     is      Dont  le  bois  fut  tout  employe 

drowned 

Into  his  little  skiff ;  A  faire  les  aiz  do  sa  biere ; 

The  boards  of  which  did  serve  him  for      De  Charon  la  main  nautonniere 

a  bier, 
So  that   to  the  black  world   when   he      Ne  prit  argent  de  ce  Berteau, 

came  near, 

Of  him  uo  waftage  greedy  Charon  got,      Comrne  ayant  passe  la  riviere 
For  he  in  his  own  boat  Des  morts  en  son  propre  bateau. 

Did  pass  that  flood  by  which  the  gods 

do  swear. 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  Ronsard  was  also  the  direct  source  of 
the  piece  beginning 'What  course  of  life  should  wretched  mortals  take  ?' 
(Poems,  n,  155).  This  piece  appeared  originally  in  Philipps's  edition  of 
the  Poems,  under  the  title  '  A  Translation  of  S.  John  Scot  his  verses, 
beginning:  Quod  vitae  sectabor  iter.'  The  original1  is  obviously  the 
well-known  epigram  attributed  to  Posidippus  (Anth.  Pal.,  II,  71).  Sir 
John  Scot's  elegy  is  a  very  free  paraphrase  of  the  same  epigram, 
extending  the  ten  verses  of  Greek  into  thirty-eight  of  Latin,  so  that 
Philipps's  rubric  can  hardly  be  a  true  indication  of  Drummond's  model, 
whereas  Ronsard's  version  (CEuvres,  ed.  Blanchemain,  vi,  409)  contains 
but  twenty-two,  and  agrees  closely  in  its  phraseology  with  that  of 
Drummond. 

But  it  is  not  only  in  the  sonnets  and  shorter  pieces  that  Drummond 
is  indebted  to  Ronsard ;  indeed  his  debt  is  much  greater  in  the  longer 
poems.  Forth  Feasting2,  one  of  the  longest  of  the  Scottish  poet's  com- 
positions, is  constructed  in  great  part  on  the  pattern  of  the  opening 
poem,  addressed  to  Henry  III  of  France,  of  the  Bocage  Royal  (  CEuvres, 

1  It  is  prettily  translated  by  Philip  Ayres  (1638-1712),  in  Saintsbury's  Minor  Poete  of 
the  Caroline  Period,  u,  343.      The  reply  by  Metrodorus  to  this  epigram,  asserting  the 
contrary  in  every  particular,  is  translated  in  the  Arte  of  English  Poesie  (Bk  in,  ch.  19), 
attributed  to  Puttenham,  and  also  by  Philip  Ayres.     The  Greek  original  can  be  found 
conveniently  on  p.  299  of  the  new  edition  of  J.  W.  Mackail's  Select  Epigrams  from  the 
Greek  Anthology,  London,  1906. 

2  Prof.  John  Purves  (Athenteum,  Feb.  11,  1905)  points  out  that  Drummond  probably 
derived  the  title  of  this  piece  from  Marino's  Tebro  Festante,  a  panegyric  and  congratulatory 
poem  on  the  election  of  Leo  XI,  which  appears  to  have  been  issued  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Nuove  Poesie  of  Marino  (1614).    Considering  Drummond's  large  debt  to  Marino,  this  may  be 
readily  admitted ;  but  that  he  borrowed  no  more  than  the  title  is  at  once  obvious  to  anyone 
who  chooses  to  read  the  two  compositions,  which  bear  no  resemblance  to  each  other  either 
in  form  or  matter.     (Cf.  p.  98  of  Menghini's  Vita  ed  Opere  di  Giambattista  Marino,  Home, 
1888.) 


L.    E.    KASTNER 


333 


III,  265) ;  several  passages  in  fact  follow  the  French  text  at  no  great 
distance,  and  generally  in  a  condensed  form,  such  as  the  following: 

When  years  thee  vigour  gave,  0  then  A  forcer  par  les  bois  un  cerf  au  front 

how  clear  rame, 

Did  smothered  sparkles  in  bright  flames  Enferrer  un  sanglier  de  defenses  arme, 

appear ! 

Amongst  the  woods  to  force  a  flying  Voir  levreter  le  lievre  a  la  jambe  pelue, 

hart, 

To    pierce    the    mountain    wolf    with  Voir  pendre  les  faucons  au  milieu  de  la 

feather'd  dart,  nue, 

See  falcons  climb  the  clouds,  the  fox  Faire    d'un    pied    leger    poudroyer    les 

ensnare,  sablons, 

Outrun     the     wind-outrunning     daedal  Voir  bondir  par  les  prez   1'enflure   des 

hare,  ballons ; 

To  loose  a  trampling  steed   alongst  a  A  porter  le  harnois,  a  courir  la  campagne, 

plain, 

And    in    meaud'ring    gyres    him    bring  A  donter  sous  le  frein  un  beau  genet 

again,  d'Espaigne, 

The    press    thee    making    place,    were  A   sauter,    k   luitter  d'un   bras   fort  et 

vulgar  things ;  voute : 

In  admiration's  air,  on  glory's  wings,  Voilk  les  ferremens  trenchans  1'oisivete". 

0!    thou  far  from   the   common   pitch  

didst  rise, 

With  thy  designs  to  dazzle  envy's  eyes :  II  a  voulu  s§avoir  ce  que  peut  la  nature, 

Thou  sought'st  to  know  this  All's  eternal  Et  de  quel  pas  marchoit   la   premiere 

source,  closture 

Of    ever-turning    heavens    the    restless  Du  ciel,  qui  tournoyant  se  resuit  en  son 

course,  cours, 

Their    fixed    eyes,   their    lights    which  Et   du   soleil,  qui   fait  le   sien  tout  au 

wand'ring  run,  rebours. 

Whence  rnoon  her  silver  hath,  his  gold  II   a   voulu   S9avoir  des  planetes   les 

the  sun;  danses, 

If  destine  be  or  no,  if  planets  can  Tours,  aspects  et   vertus,  demeures   et 

distances ; 

By  fierce  aspects  force  the  free-will  of  II  a  voulu  s§avoir  les  cornes  du  croissant, 

man ; 

The  light   and   spiring  fire,  the  liquid  Comme  d'un  feu  bastard  il  se  va  rem- 

air,  plissant, 

The  flaming  dragons,  comets  with  red  Second  Endymion  amoureux  de  la  lune. 

hair, 

Heaven's   tilting    lances,   artillery,   and  II   a   voulu   scavoir  que  c'estoit  que 

bow,  Fortune, 

Loud-sounding  trumpets,  darts  of  hail  Que  c'estoit  que  Destin,  si  les  iufluxions 

and  snow, 

The  roaring  element  with  people  dumb,  Des   astres  commandoient  a  nos   com- 
plexions. 

The  earth,  with  what  conceiv'd  is  in  her  Puis,   descendant    plus    bas    sous    le 

womb,                                                     .  second  estage, 

What  on  her  moves,  were  set  unto  thy  II  a  cognu  du  feu  la  nature  volage, 

sight, 

Till  thou  didst  find  their  causes,  essence,  II  a  pratique  1'air,  combien  il  est  subtil, 

might : 

But  unto  nought  thou  so  thy  mind  didst  Comme  il  est  nourrissier  de  ce  monde 

strain,  fertil, 

As   to   be  read   in   man,  and  learn  to  Comme  il  est  imprime  de  formes  diffe- 

reign,  rentes. 


334  Drummond  and  the  Poets  of  the  Pleiade 


To  know   the  weight   and   Atlas   of  a 

crown, 
To  spare  the  humble,  proudlings  pester 

down. 
When  from  those  piercing  cares  which 

thrones  invest, 
As  thorns  the  rose,  thou  wearied  wouldst 

thee  rest, 

With  lute  in  hand,  full  of  celestial  fire, 
To  the  Pierian  groves  thou  didst  retire : 

There,    garlanded  .  with    all     Urania's 

flowers, 
In   sweeter  lays  than  builded   Thebes' 

towers, 
Or  them  which  charm'd  the  dolphins  in 

the  main, 

Or  which  did  call  Eurydice  again, 
Thou  sung'st  away  the  hours,  till  from 

their  sphere 
Stars  seem'd  to  shoot,  thy  melody  to 

hear. 
The  god   with   golden   hair,   the   sister 

maids, 
Left  nymphal   Helicon,   their   Tempe's 

shades, 
To  see  thine  isle,  here  lost  their  native 

tongue, 
And  in  thy  world-divided  language  sung. 


II   a    cognu   la   foudre    et    ses    fleches 

errantes 
D'un  grand  bruit  par  le  vague,  et  si  le 

soleil  peint 
L'arc  au  ciel  en  substance,  ou  s'il  ap- 

paroist  feint. 
Puis  il  a  fait  passer  son  esprit  sous 

les  ondes,  • 

A  cognu  de  Tethys  les  abysmes  profondes, 
Et    du    vieillard     Protee    a    conte    les 

troupeaux. 
II  a  cognu  le  flot  et  le  reflot  des  eaux ; 

Si  la  lune  a  credit  sur  1'element  humide, 

Ou  si   1'ame  de  1'eau  d'elle-mesme    se 

guide, 

Eslan§ant  son  esprit  des  terres  a  1'entour 
Pour  ne  vivre  en  paresse  et  croupir  en 

sejour. 
Puis,  venant  sur  la  terre,  a  visite  les 

villes, 
Les  hommes  et  leurs  moeurs  et  leurs 

reigles  ci  villes, 
Pour   sgavoir  a    son   peuple   en   vertus 

esclairer, 
Pour  luy  lascher  la  bride  ou  pour  la  luy 

serrer, 
Cognoissant    par    effect    toutes    vertus 

morales. 
Puis,  entrant   sous  la  terre  aux  caves 

infernales, 

A  cherche  les  metaux,  et,  d'esprit  diligent 
Cognu  comine  se  fait  1'or,  le  plomb  et 

1'argent, 
Quelle  humeur  les  engendre  es  veines  de 

la  terre, 
Et  le  cuivre  et  le  fer,  instrument  de  la 

guerre. 
Puis  d'un  si  haut  travail  se  voulant 

soulager, 
Et  d'un  docte  laurier  ses  tempes  om- 

brager, 
Prenant  le  luth  en  main  qui  dextrement 

me  guide, 

Se  va  seul  recreer  en  1'antre  Pieride, 
Toutes   les   fleurs  d'Euterpe    attachant 

a  son  front. 
Apollon,  qui  1'escoute,  et  les  Muses,  qui 

vont 
'Dansant  autour  de   luy,  1'inspirent   de 

leur  grace, 
Soit  qu'il  vueille  tourner  une  chanson 

d'Horace, 
Soit   qu'il    vueille    chanter   en  accords 

plus  parfaits 
Les    gestes   martiaux    que  luy-mesmes 

a  faits. 


L.    E.    KASTNER 


335 


Another  of  the  Scottish  poet's  longest  and  finest  pieces,  An  Hymn 
of  the  Fairest  Fair,  may  be  called  an  amplification  of  the  French  poet's 
Hymne  de  I'lZternite  ((Euvres,  v,  p.  13),  whole  passages  being  little  more 
than  translations : 

Grant  me,  time's  Father,  world-contain-      Donne-moy    done    de    grace,    immense 


ing  King, 

A  pow'r,  of  thee  in  pow'rful  lays  to  sing, 
That    as    thy    beauty    in    earth    lives, 

heaven  shines, 
So  it  may  dawn  or  shadow  in  my  lines. 


Eternite, 
Pouvoir  de  raconter  ta  grande  deite" ; 


Ann  que  ma  chanson  soit  vive  autant 
de  jours, 


As   far   beyond    the   starry   walls    of  Qu'eternelle  tu  vis  sans  voir  finir  ton 

heaven,  cours ; 

As  is  the  loftiest  of  the  planets  seven  

Sequestered  from  this  earth,  in  purest 

light, 

Outshining    ours,   as    ours    doth    sable  Tu   te   sieds   en   1'habit  d'un    inanteau 


Tout    au    plus    haut  du   ciel   dans   un 
throne 


night, 

Thou,  all-sufficient,  omnipotent, 
Thou  ever-glorious,  most  excellent, 

God  various  in  names,  in  essence  one, 

High  art  installed  on  a  golden  throne, 
Outreaching    heaven's    wide   vasts,   the 

bounds  of  nought, 
Transcending    all    the    circles    of    our 

thought : 
With  diamantine  sceptre  in  thy  hand 

There  thou  giv'st  laws,  and   dost   this 

world  command, 
This  world  of  concords  rais'd  unlikely 

sweet, 
Which  like  a  ball  lies  prostrate  to  thy 

feet. 


.not  far  from  thy  right  side, 


With    curled    locks    Youth    ever    doth 

abide ; 
Rose -cheeked    Youth,    who,    garlanded 

with  flowers 
Still    blooming,   ceaselessly    unto    thee 

pours 

Immortal  nectar  in  a  cup  of  gold, 
That  by  no  darts  of  ages  thou  grow  old, 
And,  as  ends  and  beginnings  thee  not 

claim, 


colord 

De  pourpre  raye  d'or,  duquel  la  broderie 
De  tous  costes  s'esclatte  en  riche  pier- 

rerie, 
Et    la,    tenant    au    poing    un    sceptre 

adamantin, 

Tu  ordonnes  tes  loix  au  severe  Destin, 
Qu'il  n'ose  outrepasser,  et  que  luy-mesme 

engrave 
Fermes  au  front  du  ciel,  car  il  est  ton 

esclave, 
Faisant  tourner  sous  toy  les  neuf  temples 

voutez 
Qui  dedans  et  dehors  cement  de  tous 

costez, 
Sans  rien  laisser  ailleurs,  tous  les  mem- 

bres  du  monde 
Qui  gist  dessous  tes  pieds  comme  une 

boule  ronde. 

A  ton  dextre  coste  la  Jeunesse  se  tient, 
Jeunesse  au  chef  crespu,  de  qui  la  tresse 

vient 
Flottant  jusqu'aux  talons  par  ondes  non 

tondue, 
Et  luy  frappe  le  dos  en  fils  d'or  estendue. 

Ceste  belle  Jeunesse  au  teint  vermeil 

et  franc, 

D'une  boucle  d'azur  ceinte  dessur  le  flanc, 
Dans  un  vase  dore  te  donne  de  la  destre 
A  boire  du  nectar,  a  fin  de  te  faire  estre 


Successionless   that   thou   be    still    the      Tousjours  saine  et  disposte,  et  a  fin  que 

same.  ton  front 

Near  to  thy  other  side  resistless  Might      Ne  soit  jamais  ride  comme  les  nostres 

sont. 

From  head  to  foot  in  burnish'd  armour          Elle   de  main   senestre,  avec  grande 
dight  rudesse, 


336  Drummond  and  the  Poets  of  the  Pleiade 

Eepousse  Pestomac  de  la  triste  Vieillesse, 


That  rings  about  him,  with  a  waving 

brand 
And  watchful  eye,  great  sentinel  doth 

stand ; 
That  neither  time  nor  force  in  aught 

impair 
Thy    workmanship,    nor    harm     thine 

empire  fair, 
Soon   to   give  death   to  all  again   that 

would 
Stern  discord  raise,  which  thou  destroy'd 

of  old ; 
Discord,  that  foe  to  order,  nurse  of  war, 

By  which  the  noblest  things  demolish'd 

are; 
But,  caitiff,  she  no  treason  doth  devise, 

When  might  to  nought  doth  bring  her 

enterprise, 
Thy    all-upholding    Might    her    malice 

reins, 
And  her  in  hell  throws  bound  in  iron 

chains. 


Et  la  chasse  du  ciel  k  coups  d'espee,  k 

fin 
Que  le  ciel  ne  vieillisse  et  qu'il  ne  prenne 

fin. 
A  ton  autre  coste  la  Puissance  eternelle 

Se   tient   debout   planted,   armee  a   la 

maminelle 
D'un  corselet  grave"  qui  luy  couvre  le 

sein, 
Branslant  de  nuict  et  jour  un  espieu 

dans  la  main, 
Pour  garder  seurement  les  bords  de  ton 

empire, 
Ton  regne  et  ta  richesse,  a  fin  que  rien 

n'empire 
Par  la  suite  des  ans,  et  pour  donner  la 

mort 

A  quiconque  voudroit  ramener  le  Dis- 
cord, 
Discord    ton    ennemy,    qui    ses    forces 

assemble 

Pour  faire  mutiner  les  elemens  ensemble 
A  la  perte  du  monde  et  de  4on  doux 

repos, 
Et  voudroit,  s'il  pouvoit,  r'engendrer  le 

Chaos. 
Mais  tout  incontinent  que  cet  ennemy 

brasse 

Trahisoii  centre  toy,  la  Vertu  le  menasse, 
Et  1'envoye  Ik  bas  aux  abysmes  d'enfer 
Garrotte  pieds  et  mains  de  cent  chaisnes 

de  fer. 

In  the  long  fragment  entitled  The  Shadow  of  the  Judgment  Ronsard's 
sixth  hymn  De  la  Justice  ((Euvres,  v,  107)  is  laid  under  contribution 
for  the  complaint  of  Justice  to  the  King  of  Ages;  although  in  this 
instance  the  resemblance  in  particulars  is  slight,  yet  parallel  passages 
could  be  quoted  which  are  also  close  renderings.  Lastly  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that  the  Pastoral  Elegy  on  the  Death  of  Sir  Anthony 
Alexander  owes  something  to  the  sixth  eclogue  of  Ronsard,  more 
particularly  in  the  concluding  lines,  and  that  the  Entertainment  of  the 
High  and  Mighty  Monarch,  Prince  Charles  contains  several  reminiscences 
of  the  first  piece  in  the  same  collection,  except  that  for  Ronsard's 
description  of  the  beauties  of  France,  Drummond  substitutes  a  corres- 
ponding passage  on  Scotland  and  Scottish  character  which  Buchanan 
had  introduced  in  his  Epithalamium  in  honour  of  Francis  of  Valois  and 
Mary  Stuart  (Sylvae,  iv). 

This  repeated  recurrence  on  the  part  of  Drummond  to  the  works  of 


L.    E.    KASTNER  337 

a  poet  whose  star  had  long  set  in  his  own  land  may  seem  strange  at  first 
sight.  However,  it  must  be  remembered  that  when  the  young  Scot 
was  first  in  France  the  fame  of  Ronsard,  though  declining,  was  still 
a  power,  and  that  Malherbe  had  not  yet  established  in  the  world  of 
letters  that  ascendancy  which  after  a  short  struggle  he  was  destined  to 
maintain  for  many  years.  Moreover,  although  the  case  of  Drummond 
is  in  all  probability  an  isolated  phenomenon  in  English  literature — the 
height  of  Ronsard's  popularity  in  England  coinciding  with  the  last  two 
decades  of  the  sixteenth  century — the  same  cannot  be  said  of  other 
countries.  In  Germany  and  Holland  more  especially,  and  to  a  lesser 
degree  in  Italy,  the  works  of  the  chief  of  the  Plelade  were  read  eagerly 
and  imitated  during  the  whole  time  that  Drummond  was  writing 
poetry,  and  when  Ronsard's  writings,  in  his  own  native  land,  were 
perused  only  by  a  few  conservative  country  gentlemen.  Opitz,  both  in 
theory  and  practice,  took  him  as  his  chief  model1  in  his  attempt  to 
reform  German  poetry ;  a  large  number  of  passages  in  the  Buck  von  der 
deutschen  Poeterey  are  copied  verbatim  from  Ronsard's  Art  Poetique  or 
from  his  prefaces  to  the  Franciade,  and  a  still  larger  proportion  of  his 
poems  are  translations  or  paraphrases  of  his  French  predecessor's  work, 
while  others  are  skilfully  tessellated  with  passages  culled  here  and  there 
from  Ronsard's  poetry.  P.  Melissus,  G.  R.  Weckherlin,  and  other  poets 
of  the  group  of  German  writers  associated  with  Opitz,  were  also  fervent 
admirers  of  the  'grand  Venddmois.'  In  Holland,  D.  Heinsius  in  his 
Nederduytsche  Poemata  (1618)  frequently  imitated  the  same  model.  In 
so  doing  he  was  following  the  example  set  by  his  predecessors  Spieghel, 
van  der  Noot,  and  Jan  van  Hout  who  as  early  as  1575  had  composed 
fluent  verses  in  the  same  manner.  In  Italy,  during  the  vogue  of 
Marinism,  Marino  himself  borrowed  the  matter  of  more  than  one  of  his 
poems  from  the  same  source,  and  Ronsard  was  the  only  modern  foreign 
poet,  besides  Garcilaso  de  la  Vega,  for  whom  the  admiring  Italian  found 
a  niche  in  his  Galleria. 

We  will  now  return  to  our  main  topic,  and  proceed  to  investigate 
Drummond's  indebtedness  to  another  member  of  Ronsard's  group, 
namely,  Pontus  de  Tyard,  one  of  the  lesser  stars  of  the  Pleiade, 
and  the  author  of  the  Erreurs  Amoureuses  (1549-1554),  a  collection 
of  sonnets  with  a  few  miscellaneous  pieces  interspersed,  of  which 
Drummond  is  known  to  have  had  a  copy  on  his  shelves2.  Apart 

1  See  Bichard  Beckherrn,  M.  Opitz,  P.  Ronsard  und  D.  Heinsius,  Konigsberg,  1888. 

2  Pontus  de  Tyard  was  also  one  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  favourite  French  poets ;  her 
library  contained  a  copy  of  the  Erreurs  Amoureuses. 


M.   L.  R.  IV. 


22 


338  Drummond  and  the  Poets  of  the  Pleiade 

from  the  importance  in  the  history  of  French  literature  of  the  date 
of  Tyard's  collection,  the  first  book  of  which  appeared  at  the  close  of 
154&  a  few  months  after  Du  Bellay's  Olive,  it  has  little  to  recommend 
it  to  the  lover  of  poetry.  The  verse  is  invariably  dull  and  not  in- 
frequently intricate  and  even  obscure.  Thus  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
how  Drummond  came  to  be  attracted  by  the  French  poet's  work; 
possibly  the  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  that  combination  of  philo- 
sophic thought  and  spiritual  love  which  Pontus  de  Tyard  had  imbibed 
from  the  Delie  of  Maurice  Sceve,  and  which  he  further  reinforced  by 
studying  and  translating  the  Dialoghi  di  Amore  of  Leo  Hebraeus. 
However,  Drummond  borrowed  only  very  sparingly  and  discreetly  from 
the  author  of  the  Erreurs,  and  not  wholesale  as  he  did  from  Desportes. 
Sonnet  XLV  of  Drummond  (ed.  Ward,  I,  86)  is  a  close  adaptation  of 
Sonnet  XI  of  the  Third  Book  of  the  Erreurs  Amoureuses,  which  is 
quoted  according  to  Marty-La veaux  ((Euvres  Poetiques  de  Pontus  de 
Tyard,  Paris,  1875).  It  need  hardly  be  pointed  out  that,  as  is  nearly 
invariably  the  case,  the  conveyance  is  executed  with  Drummond's  usual 
felicity : 

Are  these  the  flow'ry  banks,  is  this  the  Sont-ce  ces  prez  ou  ma  Deesse  affable 

mead, 

Where  she  was  wont  to  pass  the  pleasant  Comme  Diane  allaigreinent  troussee, 

hours? 

Did  here  her  eyes  exhale  mine  eyes'  salt  Chantoit  un  chant  de  ma  peine  passee, 

show'rs, 

When  on  her  lap  I  laid  my  weary  head  ?  Et  s'en  rendoit  soy-me'me  pitoyable  ? 

Is  this  the  goodly  elm  did  us  o'erspread,  Est-ce  cest  Orme,  ou  d'un  riz  aimable, 

Whose  tender  rind,  cut  out  in  curious  Disant,  A  dieu  gloire  de  ma  pensee, 

flow'rs 

By    that    white    hand,   contains    those  Mignardement  k  mon  col  enlacee, 

flames  of  ours? 

Is   this   the  rustling   spring   us    music  Elle  me  fut  d'vn  baiser  fauorable? 

made? 

Deflourish'd  mead,  where  is  your  heavenly  Et  dea,  ou  est  (6  prez  defleurez)  douq 

hue? 

Bank,   where  that  arras  did  you  late  Le    beau    tappiz,    qui    vous    ornoit 

adorn?                                  .  adonq? 

How  look    ye,   elm,   all    withered   and  Et  1'honneur  gay  (Orme)  de  ta  ver- 

forlorn?  dure? 

Only,  sweet  spring,  nought  altered  seems  Languissez  vous   pour  ma    Nymphette 

in  you;  absente? 

But  while   here   chang'd  each  other  Donques  sa  veue  est  elle  assez  puis- 

thing  appears,  sante, 

To  sour  your  streams  take  of  mine  Pour,  comme  moy,  vous  donner  nour- 

eyes  these  tears.  riture? 

Again  Sonnet  xxvil  of  Drummond  is  manifestly  written  on  the 
pattern  of  the  opening  sonnet  of  the  Second  Book  of  the  French 
poet's  sonnet-cycle: 


L.    E.    KASTNER  339 

That  I  so  slenderly  set  forth  my  mind,  le   n'atten   point   que    mon    nom    Ton 

escriue 

Writing    I    wot    not    what    in    ragged  Au  rang  de  ceux,  qui  ont  des  rameaux 

rhymes,  vers 

And  charg'd  with  brass  into  these  golden  Du.  blond  Phebus  les  sgauans  frons 

times,  couuers, 

When   others  tower  so  high,   am    left  Hors  du  danger  de  1'oublieuse  riue. 

behind ; 

I   crave  not  Phoebus  leave  his  sacred  Sceve  parmi  les  doctes  bouches  viue : 

cell 

To  bind  my  brows  with  fresh  Aonian  Reste  Romans  honore  par  les  vers 

bays; 

Let  them  have  that  who  tuning  sweetest  De  Desautelz :   &  chante  PVniuers 

lays 

By  Tempe  sit,  or  Aganippe's  well ;  Le  riche  loz  de  1'Immortelle  Oliue : 

Nor  yet  to  Venus'  tree  do  I  aspire,  Vueille   Apollon    du  double    mont  de- 

scendre, 

Sith  she  for  whom  I  might  aft'ect  that  Pour  rendre  grace  a  cest  autre  Ter- 

praise,  pandre, 

My   best    attempts    with    cruel    words  Qui  renouuelle  &  1'vne,  &  1'autre  Lyre. 

gainsays, 

And  I  seek  not  that  others  me  admire.  Mais  moy,  scez  tu  a  quoy,  Dame,  i'aspire? 

Of  weeping  myrrh  the  crown  is  which  C'est  sanz  espoir  de  piteuse  te  rendre 

I  crave, 

With    a    sad    cypress    to    adorn  my  Que  seulement  mes  plains  tu  daignes 

grave.  lire. 

Instead  of  adopting  Tyard's  rather  prosy  enumeration  of  some  of 
his  poetic  friends,  Drummond  replaces  the  second  quatrain  and  the 
first  tercet  by  an  amplification  of  the  first  quatrain  of  the  next  sonnet 
in  which  the  same  theme  is  elaborated : 

le  n'ay  encor  de  la  sainte  eau  sceu  boire 

Dessouz  le  pied  du  prompt  cheual  des  Cieux: 
Ny  le  douz  songe  ha  repu  mes  deux  yeux 
Au  double  mont,  des  filles  de  Memoire. 

A  piece  entitled  £pigramme  (  (Euvres  Poetiques,  p.  24)  gives  Drum- 
mond a  start  for  Sonnet  xxxiv,  the  opening  lines  being  an  almost 
literal  translation : 

O  cruel  beauty,  meekness  inhumane,          Beaute  cruelle,  &  douceur  inhumaine, 
That  night  and  day  contend  with  my          Qui  guerroyez  sans  cesse  en  mon  de"sir, 

desire, 
And  seek  my  hope  to  kill,  not  quench          Pour  esbrauler  1'espoir  du  desplaisir 

my  fire, 
By  death,  not  balm,  to  ease  my  pleasant          Qui  me  trauaille  en  si  plaisante  peine. 

pain. 

Lastly  Sonnet  XLVII  is  clearly  suggested  by  the  following  sonnet  of 
the  Erreurs  Amoureuses  ((Euvres  Poetiques,  p.  Ill): 

O  Night,  clear  night,  0  dark  and  gloomy      O  calme  nuit,  qui  doucement  composes 

day! 
0  woful  waking !  O  soul-pleasing  sleep !          En  ma  faveur  1'ombre  mieux  animee, 

22 2 


340  Drummond  and  the  Poets  of  the  Pleiade 


O  sweet  conceits  which  in  my  brains  did 

creep, 
Yet  sour  conceits  which  went  so  soon 

away ! 
A  sleep  I  had  more  than  poor  words 

can  say, 
For,  closed  in  arms,  methought,  I  did 

thee  keep; 
A  sorry  wretch  plung'd  in  misfortunes 

deep 
Am  I  not,  wak'd,  when  light  'doth  lies 

bewray  ? 
0  that  that  night  had  ever  still  been 

black! 
0  that  that  day  had  never  yet  begun! 

And  you,  mine  eyes,  would  ye  no  time 

saw  sun, 

To  have  your  sun  in  such  a  zodiac! 
Lo!    what  is  good   of  life  is  but  a 

dream, 
When  sorrow  is  a  never-ebbing  stream. 


Qu'onques   Morphee   en    sa  sale  en- 

fumee, 

Peignit    du    rien    de    ses    Metamor- 
phoses ! 
Combien  heureux  les  oeillets,  &  les  roses 

Ceingnoient    le    bras    de    mon    ame 

espamee, 
Affriandant  une  langue  affamee 

Du  Paradis  de  deux  leures  descloses ! 

Lors    que    Phe'bus,    laissant    sa    molle 

couche, 
Se  vint  moquer  de  mes  bras,  de  ma 

bouche, 
Et  de  sa  soeur,  la  lumiere  fourchue ! 

Ah,  que  boiteux  d'une  poxissiue  haleine 
Soient  ses  cheuaux,  &  ne  cueille  sa 

peine 
Qu'vn  fruit  amer  de  la  vierge  branchue. 


From  the  other  associates  of  Ronsard  Drummond  does  not  appear 
to  have  taken  much.  The  seventh  sonnet  of  the  Second  Part  of  the 
Poems  ('  O !  it  is  not  to  me,  bright  lamp  of  day ')  is  manifestly  written 
on  the  model  of  a  sonnet  of  Baif 's  Amours  de  Francine  ('  Las !  ny  pour 
moy  les  zefirs  ne  ventellent '). 

Last  of  all  attention  may  be  drawn  to  the  curious  device  employed 
on  two  occasions  by  Drummond — once  in  Sonnet  Li  of  the  Poems,  and 
a  second  time  in  a  composition  of  similar  form  in  the  Flowers  of  Sion. 
This  device  consists  of  constructing  the  sonnet  on  two  rime-words  only, 
alternating  according  to  rules.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
Scottish  poet  borrowed  this  idea  from  Sonnet  ex  in  Du  Bellay's  Olive ; 
in  both  poets  the  two  rime-words  chosen  are  the  same,  and  the  general 
theme  of  Du  Bellay's  sonnet  and  of  the  one  '  Upon  the  Sepulchre  of  our 
Lord '  in  the  Flowers  of  Sion  is  very  similar : 


Life,  to  give  life,  deprived  is  of  life, 
And  death  display'd  hath  ensign  against 

death; 

.So  violent  the  rigour  was  of  death, 
That  nought  could  daunt  it  but  the  life 

of  life: 
No  power    had    power  to  thrall    life's 

power  to  death, 

But  willingly  life  hath  abandoned  life, 
Love  gave   the   wound   which  wrought 

this  work  of  death, 
His  bow  and  shafts  were  of  the  tree  of 

life. 


Dieu,  qui  changeant  avec  obscure  mort 
Ta  bien-heureuse  et  immortelle  vie 

Fus  aux  pecheurs  prodigue  de  ta  vie, 
Pour  les  tirer  de  1'^ternelle  mort : 

Telle  pitie  coulpable  de  ta  mort 

Guide  les  pas  de  ma  fascheuse  vie 
Tant    que   par   toy,   a   plus   joyeuse 

vie 
Je  soy3  conduit  du  travail  de  la  mort. 


L.    E.    KASTNER  341 

Now  quakes  the  author  of  eternal  death,  '   N'avise  point,  6  Seigneur,  que  ma  vie 
To  find  that  they  whom  erst  he  reft  of          Ne  soit  noye"e  aux  ondes  de  la  mort, 

life, 
Shall   fill  his  room  above  the  lists  of          Qui  me  distrait  d'une  si  douce  vie: 

death ; 
Now  all  rejoice  in  death  who  hope  for      Oste  la  palme  a  ceste  injuste  mort 

life. 
Dead  Jesus  lies,  who  death  hath  killed          Qui  ja  s'en  va  superbe  de  ma  vie, 

by  death, 
His  tomb  no  tomb  is,  but  new  source          Et  morte  soy  toujours  pour  moy  la 

of  life.  mort. 

Very  probably  Drummond  found  an  additional  inducement  to  attempt 
this  metrical  tour  de  force  from  the  fact  that  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  whom 
he  never  ceased  to  look  upon  as  a  model,  had  successfully  coped  with 
the  difficulties  it  presents  in  the  eighty-ninth  sonnet  of  Astrophel  and 
Stella,  and  also  in  the  sonnet  of  the  Third  Book  of  Arcadia,  with  which 
Zelmane,  sitting  in  the  first  entry  of  the  wonderful  cave,  '  gave  a  doleful 
way  to  her  bitter  effects1.' 

L.  E.  KASTNER. 

ABERYSTWYTH. 


1  The  two  rime-words  used  by  Sir  Philip  Sidney  are  'night'  and  'day,'  and  'dark'  and 
'  light '  respectively.  This  device,  though  very  rare,  was  not  unknown  to  the  Italians. 
In  view  of  the  above  considerations,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  Drummond's  source  is 
Italian  rather  than  French,  or  that  he  constructed  the  sonnet  in  question  on  the  pattern 
of  the  anonymous  Italian  sonnet  utilized  by  Du  Bellay  and  found  by  the  latter  in  a  col- 
lection which  in  Drummond's  days  was  no  longer  read.  (Cf.  J.  Vianey,  Les  sources  italiennes 
de  I' Olive,  Paris,  1901.)  Originally  the  idea  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  fourteenth 
sonnet  of  Petrarch's  Rime,  in  which  the  octave  is  constructed  on  the  two  rime- words  '  parte ' 
and  'luce.' 


SHAKSPERE'S   PLAYS:    AN   EXAMINATION. 

IV1. 

To  Shakspere's  portion  of  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew  various  dates 
from  1594  to  1607  have  been  assigned.  That  the  play  is  only  partly 
his  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  The  whole  of  Act  I ;  n,  1,  from  '  But  who 
comes  here  ?  Enter  Gremio '  to  '  That  is,' her  love ;  for  that  is  all  in  all'; 
in,  1  ;  the  last  nine  speeches  of  in,  2 ;  iv,  2 ;  IV,  4 ;  the  last  three  lines 
of  IV,  5 ;  V,  1 ;  and  the  first  speech  and  five  closing  speeches  of  v,  2  are 
clearly  by  another  author,  to  whom  also  must  be  attributed  the  closing 
portion  of  II,  1  (perhaps  from  the  re-entry  of  Baptista,  perhaps  only 
from  Petruchio's  exit)  and  that  portion  of  in,  2  extending  from 
Petruchio's  first  entry  to  his  re-entry  (or,  it  may  be,  only  from  his  first 
exit  to  Gremio's  subsequent  entry),  while  that  part  of  v,  2  preceding 
Bianca's  exit  may  also  perhaps  be  wholly  or  partly  by  him.  Whoever 
this  writer  was,  he  may  be  judged  by  his  metre  to  belong  to  the  early 
days  of  the  drama,  for  his  style  is  stiff  and  antiquated.  Shakspere's 
work  in  the  play  proper — that  is  to  say,  all  that  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  second  writer — is  also  so  obviously  of  early  date  that  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  how  any  critics  can  have  been  bold  enough  to  declare  it 
to  be  in  his  best  style,  or  even  to  attribute  it  to  so  late  a  date  as  1597. 
His  work  of  much  earlier  date  than  that  is  more  finished  than  is  his 
portion  of  The  Shrew.  Part  of  IV,  3  and  perhaps  also  the  longest  speech 
in  his  part  of  v,  2  may  alone  be  deemed  to  belong  to  his  second  period. 
The  play  tells  two  separate  stories — that  of  the  shrew  (contained  in  the 
first  28  speeches  of  I,  2;  n,  1,  to  Petruchio's  exit;  in,  2;  iv,  1,  3,  5; 
V,  1,  from  Gremio's  exit;  and  v,  2),  and  that  of  Bianca's  lovers.  With 
the  latter  Shakspere  did  not  meddle :  for  the  former  he  was  mainly 
responsible.  It  has  been  said  that  the  merit  of  the  play  is  entirely 
confined  to  the  Petruchio  scenes.  This  is  true ;  but  the  merit  is  by  no 

1  Continued  from  Modern  Language  Review,  Vol.  iv  (January,  1909),  p.  199. 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  343 

means  so  great  as  the  critics  would  have  us  believe.  That  Shakspere 
could  possibly  have  created  in  his  third  or  fourth  period  so  tame  a  shrew 
as  Katherine  is  incredible.  Her  shrewishness  is  shown  only  by  an 
occasional  cuffing,  but  her  conquest  is  really  very  easy  and  not  at  all 
convincing;  and  the  conception  and  presentment  of  the  character  would 
(if  it  be  not  damnable  heresy  to  say  so)  do  little  credit  to  the  great 
dramatist  even  in  his  second  period.  Besides  this  and  the  run  of  the 
verse,  there  are  other  reasons  for  the  belief  that  the  play  is  of  early  date. 
The  denying  of  Vincentio  resembles  the  denying  of  ^Egeon  in  The  Comedy 
of  Errors,  and  portions  of  II,  1  and  v,  2  are  comparable  with  the  silly 
chaff  that  plays  so  large  a  part  in  Love's  Labour  s  Lost.  Whether 
Shakspere's  work  was  grafted  on  to  the  other  man's  or  his  was  the 
earlier  is  not  an  easy  question  to  settle.  The  mention  of  '  Cousin 
Ferdinand '  in  iv,  1,  and  the  introduction  of  Hortensio  in  iv,  3  apparently 
in  his  stead  may  be  held  to  be  against  co-operation,  and,  as  they  occur 
in  Shakspere's  portion,  to  favour  the  view  that  he  was  the  reviser  rather 
than  the  original  author.  The  question  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that 
an  old  play  The  Taming  of  a  Shrew,  published  in  1594,  was  used  by 
Shakspere  in  writing  up  the  Petruchio  story  (unless  indeed  both  plays 
stole  from  some  lost  original).  In  the  old  play  the  Bianca  story  does 
not  occur,  and  the  author  of  that  portion  of  the  later  play  is  verbally 
indebted  to  A  Shrew  only  for  the  couplet  in  Petruchio's  last  speech 
beginning  '  Come  Kate,  we'll  to  bed  '  (unless,  as  is  probable,  that  couplet 
be  Shakspere's  conclusion  to  the  play,  the  other  author  having  preceded 
it  by  a  couple  of  doggrel  lines  and  followed  it  by  four  others).  With 
this  possible  exception,  the  use  of  the  old  play  is  confined  to  Shakspere's 
part  of  v,  2,  to  his  iv,  1  and  iv,  3,  and  to  the  Induction. 

Of  this  induction,  together  with  the  short  interlude  between  the 
two  scenes  of  Act  I,  nothing  has  yet  been  said.  This  framework  of  the 
play  of  The  Shrew  is  certainly  not  by  the  author  of  the  Lucentio-Bianca 
story ;  but  whether  it  is  or  is  not  by  Shakspere  is  a  matter  not  easy  to 
decide.  There  is  nothing  in  it  that  might  not  (judging  by  style)  be 
early  Shakspere,  and  yet  it  is  hard  to  find  a  passage  that  can  be  pro- 
nounced incontrovertibly  his.  It  might,  by  reason  of  his  presence  in 
the  main  body  of  the  play  and  its  resemblance  to  his  work,  be  ascribed 
to  Shakspere,  were'  it  not  for  the  circumstance  that  in  the  folio  it  is 
shown  that  one  of  the  actors  was  Sinklo,  who  belonged  to  the 
Chamberlain's  Company  at  a  date  when  Shakspere  could  hardly  have 
written  in  this  style,  and  for  the  further  circumstance  that  the 
Induction  contains  a  very  plain  allusion  to  Fletcher's  Women  Pleased, 


344  Shakspere's  Plays:   an  Examination 

which  cannot  well  be  dated  earlier  than  Shakspere's  fourth  period. 
Perhaps  the  most  natural  explanation  is  that  Shakspere's  version 
originally  ran : 

Lord.  Do  you  intend  to  stay  with  me  to-night? 

2nd  Play.     So  please  your  lordship  to  accept  our  duty.- 
Lord.  Well,  you  are  come  to  me  in  happy  time ; 

and  that  the  seven  lines  containing  the  allusion  referred  to  were  a  late 
insertion  by  some  one  other  than  Shakspere. 

Henry  V  contains  one  fragment  of  doubtful  authorship — the  last 
twenty-two  speeches  of  in,  2,  containing  the  chatter  of  the  Scotch, 
Welsh,  and  Irish  captains.  The  drama  would  lose  nothing  by  its 
omission,  as  it  serves  no  purpose  and  is  possibly  a  late  insertion, 
perhaps  Shakspere's,  but  more  probably  not.  It  is  not  found  in  the 
quarto  version,  and  in  the  folio  contains  oaths  which  have  been  omitted 
in  most  other  parts  of  the  play,  while  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  Fluellen, 
previously  styled  '  Flu.'  in  the  sideheads,  is  here  called  '  Welch.'  The 
rest  of  the  play  is  undoubtedly  Shakspere's,  but  either  the  work  is  very 
hurried  or  it  has  been  greatly  curtailed.  The  former  explanation  is 
probably  the  correct  one,  for  there  are  one  or  two  inconsistencies  that 
can  be  accounted  for  otherwise  only  if  the  shortening  was  accompanied 
by  needless  alteration. 

Of  the  two  Henry  IV  plays,  the  only  portions  that  are  to  be 
considered  as  of  doubtful  authorship  occur  in  the  first  part.  They  are 
II,  1  as  far  as  '  Exeunt  Carriers '  and  the  final  couplet  in  iv,  2.  Though 
it  is  possible  that  the  earlier  may  be  a  player's  insertion  and  that  the 
latter  may  be  a  remnant  of  the  work  of  an  early  writer,  they  may  both, 
though  not  without  hesitation,  be  ascribed  to  Shakspere,  some  of  whose 
work  in  the  first  play  may  be  of  early  date.  This  play  is  certainly  an 
alteration  and  was  published  as  '  corrected  '  by  Shakspere.  There  exist 
reasons  not  individually  strong  but  cumulatively  of  some  weight  to 
believe  that  it  was  in  existence  in  some  form  in  1592.  The  second  part 
is  not  always  consistent  with  the  first,  and  it  is  obvious  that  either 
much  of  it  is  hasty  work  or  it  has  been  subject  to  alteration.  Both 
causes  may  operate,  the  latter  one  certainly  does. 

In  the  first  part  it  is  extraordinary  that  Shakspere  should  have 
thrown  away  the  fine  opportunity  that  was  afforded  him  in  the  charging 
of  Falstaff  with  the  robbery  and  the  striking  of  the  chief  Justice  by  the 
Prince.  Did  he  shirk  it  ?  And  again  it  might  have  been  expected  that 
the  audience  would  have  been  enlightened  before  v,  3  as  to  the 
intention  of  the  king  to  have  many  '  marching  in  his  coats.'  It  may 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  345 

also  be  remarked  that  the  name  Gadshill  which  must  have  struck  many 
readers  as  a  strange  name  for  the  author  to  have  given  to  one  of  the 
heroes  of  the  robbery  at  Gad's  Hill  is  due  to  Shakspere's  misunder- 
standing of  the  use  of  the  name  in  the  anonymous  Famous  Victories, 
where  the  robber,  whose  real  name  is  Cutter,  is  addressed  ironically  by 
his  victim  as  Gadshill,  to  show  that  he  is  recognised.  Both  the 
Henry  IV  plays  seem,  like  Merry  Wives,  to  have  some  mysterious 
connection  with  Michael  Drayton,  but  the  writing  shows  no  sign  of  his 
presence. 

As  to  the  date  of  the  second  part,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Meres  (in 
1598)  speaks  of  Henry  IV,  as  if  it  were  but  a  single  play.  This  may, 
but  does  not  certainly,  mean  that  the  second  part  was  not  then  in 
existence.  Confirmation  is  afforded  by  the  entry  of  the  first  part 
in  the  Stationers'  Register  in  February  1597-8  as  The  History  of  Henry 
the  Fourth  without  any  hint  of  its  being  only  one  of  two  parts.  That  later 
editions  continued  the  title  of  the  first  quarto  does  not  seriously  affect 
the  argument,  and  it  is  singular  that  it  is  not  till  June  1623  that  the 
earlier  play  is  first  spoken  of  as  the  first  part.  The  second  part  should 
therefore  date  some  time  between  1597-8  and  its  publication  in  1600. 
It  may  be  set  against  this  view  that  Meres  classes  Henry  IV  among 
the  tragedies ;  but  the  first  part  is  better  entitled  to  be  so  classed  than 
is  the  second  part,  though  the  tragedy  is  not  Henry's,  but  Percy's. 

That  Shakspere's  work  in  The  Merchant  of  Venice  is  of  more  than 
one  date  should  be  clear  to  all.  The  early  portion  of  I,  1  and  II,  1  are 
imitative  of  Marlowe  and  the  coarseness  of  Portia  in  I,  2  may  be  ascribed 
to  the  youthful  mind.  The  story  was  dramatised  as  early  as  1579,  and 
there  are  some  reasons  to  believe  that  the  old  play  was  used  by 
Shakspere.  To  the  old  writer  may  be  attributed  the  doggrel  that 
closes  i,  2 : 

Sirrah,  go  before. 
Whiles  we  shut  the  gate  upon  one  wooer,  another  knocks  at  the  door. 

In  in,  5  a  Moor  is  mentioned  as  being  in  child  by  Launcelot  Gobbo. 
This  probably  refers  to  some  incident  dropped  out  by  Shakspere  when 
he  re-wrote  the  play.  The  two  speeches  in  which  the  matter  is  referred 
to  may  possibly  belong  to  the  original  writer,  but  would  seem  rather  to 
be  Shaksperian,  probably  reduced  from  doggrel  to  prose.  With  the 
exception  of  the  doggrel  couplet  in  I,  1,  which  is  in  all  probability 
Shakspere's  own,  there  is  no  other  fragment  of  the  present  play  that 
can  be  a  relic  of  the  old  drama  of  1579.  In  I,  2  there  has  apparently 
been  some  revision,  for,  though  six  suitors  are  named,  they  are  after- 


346  Shakspere's  Plays:   an  Examination 

wards  spoken  of  as  only  four  in  number.  An  examination  of  this  scene 
serves  to  show  that  the  speech  naming  Faulconbridge  and  the  three 
speeches  immediately  following  were  a  late  insertion  after  the  first 
production  of  the  play.  They  may  or  may  not  be  Shakspere's,  for  they 
contain  nothing  either  markedly  typical  of  him  or  distinctly  opposed  to 
his  authorship.  There  being  no  other  sign  of  the  presence  of  a  later 
reviser,  they  may  be  attributed  to  Shakspere,  like  the  rest  of  the  play, 
except  the  one  bit  of  doggrel  already  quoted.  It  may  be  remarked 
that  this  Faulconbridge  insertion  has  supplied  critics  with  a  reason  for 
dating  the  drama  1596.  The  name  is  very  reasonably  supposed  to  have 
been  taken  from  John,  but  such  an  argument  may  quite  as  well  be 
advanced  against  Shakspere's  authorship  of  the  passage  wherein  it 
occurs  as  in  favour  of  a  date  of  1596.  Some  of  the  play  besides  this 
particular  passage  would  seem  by  style  to  belong  to  such  a  date  or  even 
two  or  three  years  later,  but  a  great  deal  of  it  is  much  earlier.  This  means 
that  Shakspere  wrote  the  play  on  the  basis  of  the  old  comedy  of  1579 
and  afterwards  revised  his  work.  To  the  first  version  may  belong  the 
allusion  in  iv,  1,  to  Marlowe's  Jew  of  Malta  ('  of  the  stock  of  Barabbas'). 
Though  such  an  idea  will  certainly  be  scouted,  it  is  more  than  probable 
that  in  the  opening  portion  of  Act  5  Shakspere  deliberately  refers  to 
Marlowe  and  Nashe's  Dido,  his  own  Troilus  (the  first  production  of  which 
has  been  shown  to  be  of  early  date),  his  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  (or 
more  probably,  some  Pyramus  and  Thisbe  play  at  which  Shakspere 
laughed  in  the  Dream),  and  a  lost  play  on  the  subject  of  Medea.  This 
first  version  must  have  been  produced  not  later  than  1594. 

John  is  clearly  Shakspere's  (though  founded  on  the  old  non- 
Shaksperian  Troublesome  Reign)  but  also  clearly  of  two  periods,  I,  1, 
i,  2,  and  II,  1,  e.g.,  being  obviously  much  earlier  than  v,  1.  The  play 
would  seem  to  have  been  shortened  for  representation ;  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  Richard  II,  which  also  is  entirely  Shakspere's,  though  one 
speech  from  it  is  in  England's  Parnassus  (1600)  attributed  to  Dray  ton. 

Concerning  Romeo  it  is  not  easy  to  come  to  any  definite  opinion. 
That  the  play  is  at  least  mainly  Shakspere's  is  certain,  and  it  is  almost 
equally  certain  that  it  is  of  two  dates,  the  prologue ;  I,  2,  5,  chorus ;  II,  1, 
3 ;  iv,  1  (as  far  as  Paris'  exit),  2,  3,  5  (from  Lady  Capulet's  entry) ;  and 
v,  2  being  much  earlier  in  style  than  the  rest  of  the  play;  but  it  is 
questionable  if  some  of  these  are  Shakspere's,  the  ones  that  raise 
a  doubt  being  the  prologue,  II,  3,  iv,  2,  iv,  3,  and  the  above-mentioned 
portion  of  iv,  5.  The  first  four  may  be  given  to  Shakspere  because 
they  contain  nothing  that  may  not  be  his,  but  that  part  of  iv,  5  lying 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  347 

between  Lady  Capulet's  entry  and  the  end  of  Capulet's  second  last 
speech,  though  it  may  possibly  be  Shakspere's,  looks  rather  like 
burlesque  and  is  reminiscent  of  the  foolery  in  the  play  within  the  play 
of  Midsummer  Night's  Dream.  It  must  be  branded  '  very  doubtful.' 
The  statement  on  the  title-page  of  the  first  quarto  that  this  play  was 
acted  by  Lord  Hunsdon's  men  is  generally  taken  to  show  that  the  date 
of  production  was  between  August  1596  and  April  1597,  during  which 
time  alone  was  Shakspere's  company  known  as  Lord  Hunsdon's.  In 
reality  the  statement  implies  nothing  of  the  sort.  All  that  is  to  be 
educed  from  it  is  that  the  quarto  was  published  during  the  eight 
months  that  the  company  was  not  known  as  the  Lord  Chamberlain's. 
Thus  the  1599  edition  described  it  as  acted  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain's, 
because  the  company  was  then  so  called. 

Richard  III  is  best  considered  with  the  Henry  VI  trilogy,  to 
which  it  forms  a  sequel ;  and  Titus  is  for  many  reasons  best  taken  with 
them.  The  remaining  plays  are  Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  Two 
Gentlemen,  Comedy  of  Errors,  and  Love's  Labour  s  Lost.  Of  these  the 
first-named  is  entirely  Shakspere's,  but  there  are  many  signs  of  the 
play  having  undergone  revision  and  abbreviation.  If  in  its  present  form 
it  be  of  as  early  a  date  as  some  of  the  critics  have  supposed,  Shakspere's 
style  must  have  been  formed  early.  Rather  may  it  be  believed  with 
others  of  the  cognoscenti  that  its  revision  is  attributable  to  the  latter 
part  of  Shakspere's  second  period  or  to  the  early  part  of  his  third. 

Two  Gentlemen,  Comedy  of  Errors,  and  Love's  Labours  Lost  are 
bound  together  by  the  occurrence  of  doggrel  in  all  of  them,  though  in 
the  first-named  there  is  no  great  quantity — less  indeed  than  in  The 
Shrew,  which  is,  with  the  exception  of  The  Merchant  of  Venice  (which 
has  a  mere  trifle),  the  only  other  one  of  the  thirty-six  folio  plays  so 
distinguished.  The  critics  have  accordingly  proclaimed  doggrel  to  be 
a  characteristic  of  Shakspere's  first  period,  and  then,  using  the  base  with 
which  they  have  thus  provided  themselves,  have  declared  the  play  which 
contains  the  greatest  amount  of  doggrel  (Love's  Labour's  Lost)  to  be 
the  earliest  in  date,  the  only  other  one  which  is  very  largely  tainted 
(Comedy  of  Errors)  to  be  its  immediate  successor,  and  the  Two 
Gentlemen  to  come  third  on  the  list,  it  being  recognised  that  the 
doggrel  in  The  Shrew  is  wholly  or  mainly  the  work  of  another.  This  is 
circular  argument ;  these  plays  are  the  earliest  because  they  contain  so 
much  of  the  doggrel  characteristic  of  Shakspere  in  his  first  period,  and 
the  doggrel  is  characteristic  of  Shakspere  in  his  first  period  because  it 
is  found  in  these,  his  earliest  plays.  It  stands  to  reason  that  if  the 


348  Shakspere's  Plays:   an  Examination 

great  poet  used  this  species  of  verse  at  all  it  must  have  been  in  the 
early  part  of  his  career,  before  he  knew  better,  and  in  that  case  the 
inference  is  strong  that  these  three  plays  are  his  earliest ;  but  his 
authorship  of  the  passages  on  which  this  conclusion  is  based  must  first 
be  determined.  In  this  connection  one  has  to  consider  that  portion  of 
the  opening  scene  of  The  Two  Gentlemen  during  which  Speed  is  on  the 
stage,  the  four  anapaestic  four- foot  lines  succeeding  Silvia's  entry  in  II,  1, 
and  the  doggrel  and  seven-foot  verse  (totalling  eleven  lines)  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  same  scene ;  the  whole  of  in,  1  of  The  Comedy  of  Errors 
save  the  first  speech  and  the  last  five  speeches,  the  doggrel  in  iv,  2,  a 
couple  of  lines  in  II,  1,  two  in  n,  2,  the  same  number  also  in  in,  2,  and 
the  final  couplet  in  v,  1 ;  and  in  Love's  Labours  Lost,  II,  1  from  the 
King's  exit,  in,  1  to  Moth's  second  exit,  iv,  1  from  Costard's  entry 
(omitting  the  letter  and  the  half-dozen  lines  following),  iv,  2  prior  to 
Jaquenetta's  second  speech,  iv,  3  prior  to  Dumain's  ode  and  from 
Jaquenetta's  entry  to  exit,  and  v,  2  to  Boyet's  entry  and  from  Costard's 
first  entry  to  Mercade's  entry.  Outside  of  these  scenes  and  portions  of 
scenes,  there  is  nothing  in  any  of  the  three  plays  that  is  to  be  classed 
as  non-Shaksperian,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  three  lines  in  I,  1  of 
Errors : 

Thus  have  you  heard  ine  severed  from  my  bliss, 
That  by  misfortunes  was  my  life  prolonged, 
,  To  tell  sad  stories  of  my  own  mishaps. 

These  lines  may  be  accepted  (with  a  grimace)  as  Shakspere's  if  the 
presence  of  another  be  discernible  nowhere  else  in  the  play,  and  may  be 
his  in  any  case;  but  before  the  authorship  of  the  other  passages 
indicated  above  be  considered,  a  few  words  may  be  said  in  regard  to 
each  of  the  three  plays  in  question. 

The  undoubtedly  Shaksperian  part  of  Two  Gentlemen  is  obviously  of 
more  than  one  date,  and  that  it  has  undergone  alteration,  is,  moreover, 
rendered  probable  by  the  confusion  that  exists  in  one  or  two  particulars, 
and  also  by  the  very  uneven  lengths  of  the  various  acts.  Of  the 
assuredly  Shaksperian  scenes,  n,  4  may  be  mentioned  as  a  sample  of 
early  work,  and  iv,  4  as  a  sample  of  revision,  while  part  of  iv,  1  may  be 
of  still  later  date.  Meres,  in  1598,  speaks  of  The  Gentlemen  of  Verona, 
and  this  may  perhaps  have  been  the  title  of  Shakspere's  first  version. 
Love's  Labour's  Lost  likewise  shows  many  signs  of  alteration,  amongst 
which  may  be  mentioned  the  confusion  between  Holofernes  and 
Nathaniel.  Some  of  the  play  was  obviously  written  not  long  before 
its  publication  in  1598,  and  the  statement  on  the  title-page  of  the 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  349 

quarto,  that  it  had  been  'newly  corrected  and  augmented'  is  clearly 
trustworthy.  The  natural  interpretation  is  that  there  was  an  earlier 
edition,  unfortunately  now  lost.  Even  the  unquestionably  Shaksperian 
portions  are  of  partly  first  and  partly  second  period.  The  Comedy  of 
Errors  differs  from  both  these  plays  in  that  the  style  of  the  undeniably 
genuine  portion  may  well  be  all  of  the  one  period.  The  date  is  a  matter 
of  doubt,  the  only  allusions  giving  a  clue  occurring  in  in,  2,  and  even 
these  are  not  decisive,  for,  to  anyone  who  regards  them  strictly  on 
their  merits,  all  they  prove  is  a  date  not  earlier  than  April  1585  and 
not  later  than  February  1593-4.  If  the  probabilities  be  considered  fairly, 
the  reference  to  France's  '  heir '  may  be  held  to  imply  a  date  prior  to 
rather  than  subsequent  to  August  1589,  while  the  allusion  to  Spain's 
hot  breath  may,  as  Richard  Simpson  urged,  infer  a  pre-Armada  date. 
In  this  connection  it  is  well  to  remember  the  Tarleton  allusion  in 
Twelfth  Night  (necessarily  not  later  than  1588)  and  the  points  of 
contact  between  that  play  and  The  Comedy  of  Errors. 

There  are  three  possible  solutions  of  the  authorship  of  the  doggrel 
passages  in  the  three  plays  that  are  now  claiming  our  attention — the 
first  (that  adopted  by  all  the  critics  without  exception)  is,  that 
Shakspere  wrote  them  as  he  wrote  the  rest  of  the  three  plays;  the 
second  is,  that  he  had  a  colleague  who  was  responsible  for  these  portions 
of  the  plays,  an  idea  which  may  be  summarily  dismissed,  inasmuch  as 
the  doggrel  appears  in  some  scenes  intertwined  with  work  that  is 
unquestionably  Shaksperian;  the  third  is,  that  Shakspere's  work  was 
in  every  case  based  on  an  early  play  by  some  other  writer.  This  last 
is  the  view  that,  though,  so  far  as  I  know,  never  yet  put  forward,  has 
most  to  commend  it. 

Let  us  consider  all  that  is  meant  by  an  acceptance  of  the  common 
belief  that  the  miserable  doggrel  in  these  three  plays  must  be  laid  at  the 
door  of  Shakspere.  He  is  universally  held  to  have  been  the  greatest 
writer,  the  greatest  dramatist,  the  greatest  poet  whom  the  world  has 
ever  seen;  yet,  if  this  theory  be  correct,  he  was,  when  (if  the  dates 
ordinarily  accepted  for  the  first  versions  of  the  three  plays  be  taken) 
from  twenty-five  to  thirty  years  of  age,  writing  doggrel  that  a  schoolboy 
of  that  day  would  have  been  ashamed  to  father.  If  one  assume  dates 
of  from  1587  to  1589  for  the  first  versions  of  his  plays  the  case  is  not 
much  better,  for  he  was  twenty-three  years  of  age  in  the  former  year, 
twenty-five  in  the  latter — quite  old  enough  to  know  better.  Kyd, 
Marlowe,  Greene,  Peele,  had  all  written  blank  verse,  and  shown  what  it 
was  capable  of;  and  yet,  we  are  asked  to  believe,  Shakspere  was  so  lacking 


350  Shakspere's  Plays:   an  Examination 

in  taste,  so  incapable  of  appreciation  of  this  new  instrument  being  forged 
for  the  use  of  English  poets  that  he  preferred  to  dabble  in  doggrel  such 
as  had  been  rejected  with  scorn  by  poets  only  slightly  older.  Who  can 
credit  that,  with  the  exception  of  Robert  Wilson,  the  only  dramatist  of 
the  day  to  write  doggrel  was  William  Shakspere  ?  That  is  what  the 
acceptance  of  the  common  view  calls  upon  us  to  believe.  The  idea  is 
preposterous.  In  reality  the  mere  presence  of  anything  more  than  the 
merest  sprinkling  of  doggrel  in  a  play  should  be  enough  to  suggest  for 
it  a  date  prior  to  1588.  It  may  be  doubted  if  even  the  non-Shaksperian 
portions  of  The  Shrew  form  an  exception. 

The  chances  are  then  in  favour  of  a  very  early  date  for  the  doggrel 
portions  of  these  three  plays,  and  there  are  not  lacking  facts  in  support 
of  this  view.  In  1584-5  there  was  a  Felix  and  Philismena  acted  at 
Court  by  the  Queen's  men.  This  play  must  have  been  founded  on 
Montemayor's  story,  which  forms  one  of  the  two  bases  of  Shakspere's 
Two  Gentlemen.  In  1581-2  the  Chamberlain's  Company  presented  at 
Court  a  History  of  Ferrar  which  may  or  may  not  have  been  identical 
with  the  History  of  Error  given  by  Paul's  five  years  earlier.  Concerning 
an  original  of  Love's  Labours  Lost  we  have  no  information,  but  it  is  note- 
worthy that  part  of  the  play  deals  with  an  event  of  May  1583,  when  the 
Russian  Embassy  visited  England.  The  probability  of  the  originals  of 
all  these  plays  dating  between  1581  and  1585  is  thus  considerable;  and 
one  is  justified  in  assuming  that  the  antiquated  verse  of  much  of  the 
three  plays  must  belong  to  them,  and  confirmation  of  the  assumption  is 
perhaps  afforded  by  Speed's  statement  (in  n,  1  of  Two  Gentlemen) 
concerning  some  7-foot  verse  he  has  just  spoken — '  All  this  I  speak  in 
print,  for  in  print  I  found  it.' 

If  this  view  be  right,  the  doggrel  patches  in  n,  1,  II,  2,  in,  2,  iv,  2, 
and  v,  1  of  Comedy  of  Errors  may  perhaps  be  remnants  of  the  original 
play  by  another  author  than  Shakspere  and  the  bulk  of  in,  1  must  be 
attributable  to  this  early  writer.  One  might  reasonably  assert  (as  has 
often  been  asserted)  that  Shakspere  made  the  Dromios  speak  in  doggrel 
because  it  suited  their  characters,  but  in  in,  1,  Antipholus  of  Ephesus, 
Angelo  and  Balthazar  all  speak  the  dialect  of  Dromio.  In  The  Two 
Gentlemen,  the  remaining  work  of  the  original  author,  whoever  he  may 
have  been,  consists  only  of  fifteen  lines  in  II,  1,  and  fragments  of  the 
Speed  portion  of  the  opening  scene.  Of  Love's  Labours  Lost,  the  parts 
already  indicated  as  doubtful  are  the  remains  of  a  pre-Shaksperian 
writer,  though  in,  1,  as  far  as  Moth's  second  exit,  the  first  part  of  IV,  2 
(that  is  to  say,  prior  to  Jaquenetta's  second  speech),  iv,  3  prior  to 


E.    H.    C.    OLIPHANT  351 

Dumain's  ode,  and  v,  2,  to  Boyet's  entry  and  from  Costard's  first  exit  to 
Mercade's  entry,  contain  work  of  Shakspere's. 

All  the  thirty-six  plays  of  the  folio  have  now  been  dealt  with  with 
the  exception  of  five  in  which  the  work  of  the  great  dramatist  was  of 
a  purely  imitative  character,  making  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  dis- 
criminate between  his  work  and  that  of  the  men  he  honoured  with 
imitation.  The  basis  of  style  taken  here  is  scarcely  sufficient  for  the 
purpose.  Moreover  a  fitting  investigation  of  these  five  plays  would 
require  almost  as  much  space  as  I  have  devoted  to  the  other  thirty-one  ; 
for  every  one  of  them  shows  the  presence  of  another  writer  than 
Shakspere,  and  all  of  them  offer  resemblances  to  certain  anonymous 
plays  of  the  period — Arden,  Edward  III,  Soliman  and  Perseda,  and 
others — all  of  which  would  call  for  careful  study  and  comparison  with 
the  five  plays  in  question. 

It  will  not  have  been  overlooked  that,  by  limiting  my  field  of 
operations  to  the  plays  contained  in  the  first  folio,  I  have  excluded 
Pericles,  which  is  unanimously  regarded  as  canonical.  But,  so  far  as 
the  external  evidence  is  concerned,  it  has  no  stronger  a  claim  than  two 
or  three  other  plays  excluded  from  the  first  folio ;  and  therefore  it 
would  be  invidious  to  pick  out  it  alone  for  study.  On  the  other 
hand,  to  enter  upon  the  examination  of  all  the  plays  connected  with 
Shakspere's  name  but  omitted  from  the  first  folio  is  a  task  calling  for 
more  time  than  I  have  at  my  disposal.  Therefore,  feeling  the  only  fair 
alternative  to  be  to  deal  with  all  or  with  none  of  these  plays,  I  decided 
on  the  latter  course,  though  it  has  necessitated  the  omission  of  Pericles. 

E.  H.  C.  OLIPHANT. 

LONDON. 


THE   SOURCE   OF   SOUTHERNER    'FATAL 
MARRIAGE.' 

THOMAS  SOUTHERNE'S  tragi-comedy  The  Fatal  Marriage,  or  The 
Innocent  Adultery  (1694)  may  be  said  to  consist  of  two  independent 
plays.  It  contains  a  tragedy  the  subject  of  which  is  fairly  accurately 
described  by  its  two  titles,  and  which  owes  nothing,  it  may  be  added, 
to  Scarron's  novel,  L'Adultere  innocente.  This  tragedy  was  separated 
out  by  Garrick  and  printed  in  1757  under  the  title  Isabella,  or  the 
Fatal  Marriage.  The  second  element  is  an  unsavoury  comic  underplot, 
which,  as  the  author  has  himself  admitted,  is  cumbersome  for  the 
progress  of  the  main  action :  '  I  have  given  you  a  little  taste  of 
comedy... not  from  my  own  opinion,  but  the  present  humour  of  the 
town :  I  never  contend  that,  because  every  reasonable  man  will,  and 
ought  to  govern  in  the  pleasures  he  pays  for.  I  had  no  occasion  for  the 
comedy,  but  in  the  three  first  acts,'  etc.1  Garrick  had  thus  the  best 
excuse  for  remodelling  the  play,  and  he  has  done  so  with  complete 
success. 

Not  only  are  the  tragedy  and  comedy  in  Southerne's  drama  easily 
separable,  but  they  are  distinct  in  origin.  In  Southerne's  Dedication 
just  quoted  he  says :  'I  took  the  hint  of  the  tragical  part  from  a  novel 
of  Mrs  Behn's,  called  the  Fair  Vow-breaker:  you  will  forgive  me  for 
calling  it  a  hint,  when  you  find  I  have  little  more  than  borrowed  the 
question,  how  far  such  a  distress  was  to  be  carried,  upon  the  misfortune 
of  a  woman's  having  innocently  two  husbands  at  the  same  time  ? '  By 
most  biographers  and  critics  this  curiously  involved  and  qualified  state- 
ment has  been  assumed  to  mean  that  Southerne  was  indebted  to 
Mrs  Aphra  Behn  for  the  main  plot  of  his  tragi-comedy.  This 
interpretation  was  first  put  forward  in  the  Life  of  Southerne  prefixed 
to  Volume  I  of  the  three  volume  edition  of  the  Plays  printed  for 
Thomas  Evans  and  T.  Becket  (1774).  Although  Thomas  Evans 

Southerne,  in  his  Dedication  to  The  Fatal  Marriage  (Plays,  1774,  Vol.  n,  p.  182). 


PAUL    HAMELIUS  353 

(1742-84),  who  was  both  bookseller  and  critic,  is  not  mentioned  as  the 
author  of  the  Life  either  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  or  in 
the  Catalogue  of  the  British  Museum,  yet  no  doubt  seems  possible  that 
it  was  written  by  him,  it  being  signed  with  his  initials  '  T.  E.'  Now  it 
was  in  this  biography  that  the  '  hint '  of  Southerne's  own  statement 
was  transformed  into  a  confession  of  borrowing1.  Evans'  statement 
reappears  in  Ward's  History  of  Dramatic  Literature*,  in  the  same 
writer's  notice  of  Southerne  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography 
and  in  Joseph  Knight's  David  Garrick  (1894)3. 

It  is,  however,  a  little  surprising  to  find  that  not  one  of  Mrs  Behn's 
tales  corresponds  with  Southerne's  description  in  his  Dedication,  or  with 
the  subject  of  his  tragedy.  The  bibliography  of  that  authoress  is  so 
confused  and  the  collection  of  her  works  in  the  British  Museum  so 
incomplete,  that  it  is  unsafe  to  make  too  sweeping  statements.  Among 
her  collected  novels4,  there  is  one  entitled  The  Nun,  or  the  Perjur'd 
Beauty,  and  Mr  Gosse  has  kindly  informed  me  that  that  story  is 
identical  with  The  Nun,  or  the  Fair  Vow-breaker  which  appears  in  the 
editio  princeps  of  1689  (inaccessible  to  me).  This  being  so,  it  is  clear 
that  Southerne's  biographers  have  been  in  error  as  to  the  real  source  of 
The  Fatal  Marriage.  For  the  perjured  nun  of  Mrs  Behn's  novel,  instead 
of  having,  as  Southerne  implies,  two  husbands  at  the  same  time,  remains 
unmarried  to  the  last,  notwithstanding  •  her  fickle  passions  for  three 
different  men,  and,  so  far  from  being  the  innocent  woman  described  by 
Southerne,  she  is  responsible  for  five  deaths :  her  three  lovers,  the 
mother  superior  of  the  convent  and  herself.  Isabella,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  as  virtuous  as  Mrs  Behn's  nun  is  the  opposite,  and  she  falls 
a  victim  to  her  brother-in-law's  wiles ;  Southerne's  play  is  sentimental, 
while  Mrs  Behn's  story  is  a  picture  of  heartless  treachery,  beginning 
with  perjury  and  ending  in  bloodshed.  The  contrast  could  not  well  be 
greater. 

Thus  Southerne  took  for  his  play,  as  he  himself  said,  no  more  than 
a  hint — one  is  inclined  to  say  hardly  a  hint — from  Mrs  Behn's  The  Fair 
Vow-breaker.  An  examination  of  Mrs  Behn's  other  novels  has  not 
revealed  any  material  points  of  analogy  between  these  and  The  Fatal 
Marriage. 

1  '...the  plot,  by  the  author's  own  confession,  is  taken  from  a  novel  of  Mrs  Behn's 
called  The  Nun,  or  Fair  Vow-breaker.'     (Life  of  Southerne,  in  Plays,  1774,  Vol.  i,  p.  6.) 

2  Ed.  1899,  Vol.  in,  p.  421. 

3  Ward,  I.e.,  surmises  that  Southerne's  Innocent  Adultery  is  the  book  mentioned  in 
Sheridan's  Rivals  (i,  ii).     But  was  Miss  Lydia  Languish  not  more  likely  to  have  read 
Scarron's  novel,  several  English  versions  of  which  had  long  been  in  existence  ? 

4  All  the  Histories  and  Novels,  1705. 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  23 


354         The  Source  of  Southerne's  '  Fated  Marriage ' 

Much  more  closely  allied  to  the  theme  of  the  play  is  a  novel  by 
Roger  Lestrange,  The  Virgin  Captive,  the  fifth  story  in  The  Spanish 
Decameron,  made  English  by  Roger  Lestrange,  London,  1687.  In  that 
novel,  the  foreign  source  of  which  I  have  not  been  able  to  trace,  two 
lovers,  Philocles  and  Aurelia,  promise  to  wait  two  years  for  each  other. 
A  report  is  spread  that  Philocles  has  been  killed  in  the  wars,  and  when 
the  two  years  are  over,  Aurelia  resolves  to  become  a  nun.  On  the  way 
to  the  convent,  she  meets  a  stranger  in  a  slave's  habit,  who  proves  to  be 
no  other  than  her  lover  just  freed  from  captivity.  He  claims  her  and 
marries  her.  This  story  is,  however,  of  so  common  a  type  that  its 
analogy  with  Southerne's  plot  is  no  proof  that  he  made  use  of 
Lestrange 's  work.  The  same  type  of  story  appears  for  instance,  twice 
in  the  Decamerone,  once  with  a  tragic  ending  (iv,  8),  and  again  with 
a  happy  one  (x,  9)1;  it  then  passed  with  Boccaccio  to  Spain,  and  from 
Spain  found  its  way  into  English  drama  and  fiction. 

The  real  source  of  The  Fatal  Marriage,  as  of  so  many  other 
seventeenth  century  plays,  is  Spanish.  It  is  the  story  of  the  lovers  of 
Teruel,  which  was  not  probably  known  to  Southerne  through  an  English 
version  of  the  legend — the  existence  of  which  is  problematical — but 
through  the  most  popular  Spanish  version,  namely,  Juan  Perez  de 
Montal van's  Amantes  de  Tei*uel  (1638).  This  comedia  had  been  pre- 
ceded by  two  others  on  the  same  theme,  A.  Rey  de  Artieda's  (1581)  and 
Tirso  de  Molina's  (1635),  it  being  itself  based  on  the  latter.  The  source 
of  the  Spanish  legend  is,  according  to  the  best  authorities2,  Boccaccio's 
tale  of  Girolamo  and  Salvestra  (Decamerone,  iv,  8). 

The  main  point  in  which  Southerne's  drama  differs  from  the  Spanish 
originals  is  the  circumstance  mentioned  in  his  Dedication  as  a  hint 
borrowed  from  Mrs  Behn.  The  Spanish  heroine,  Isabella  de  Segura,  is 
not  married  to  two  men  at  the  same  time.  She  is  pledged  to  wait  for 
her  first  lover  during  a  definite  period :  three  years  and  three  days  in 
Tirso  and  Montalvan,  seven  years  in  Hieronimo  de  Guerta's  Florando 
de  Castilla  (1616)3,  and  after  waiting  faithfully  and  being  disappointed, 
she  reluctantly  yields  to  a  second  suitor  who  is  favoured  by  her  father. 
Thus  there  is  only  one  marriage,  and  the  Spanish  Isabella  is  free  from 
the  charge  of  adultery,  either  guilty  or  innocent.  On  the  night  of  the 
wedding  the  first  lover,  who  has  been  falsely  reported  to  have  fallen  in 

1  It  is  treated  farcically  in  Shirley's  Hyde  Park. 

2  E.  Cotarelo  y  Mori,  Sobre  el  origen  y  desarrollo  de  la  leyenda  de  los  Amantes  de 
Teruel,  Madrid,  1907;  Miss  C.  B.  Bourland,  Boccaccio  and  the  Decameron  in  Castilian  and 
Catalan  Literature  in  the  Revue  Hispanique,  xn ;  M.  Menendez  y  Pelayo,  Origenes  de  la 
novela,  n  (1907),  p.  xvi. 

3  Canto  ix. 


PAUL    HAMELIUS  355 

the  wars,  reappears.  From  this  point  onwards,  the  story  differs  con- 
siderably in  the  two  Spanish  plays ;  Tirso  adheres  closely  to  tradition 
and  to  Boccaccio,  while  Montalvan  introduces  several  changes,  some  of 
which  have  been  adopted  by  his  English  imitator.  In  Tirso  the  first 
iOver  meets  the  bride  in  the  bridal  chamber,  claims  a  kiss  and  when 
denied,  falls  down  at  her  feet  and  dies  of  grief.  The  bridegroom  then 
takes  the  dead  man  on  his  back  and  carries  him  to  the  threshold  of  his 
father's  house.  At  the  funeral  the  bride  dies  upon  her  lover's  body. 
In  Montal van's  version  of  the  legend  the  marriage  is  consummated  and 
the  bedroom  and  funeral  scenes  omitted ;  Montal  van's  lover  '  se  did  la 
muerte  sin  espada,'  i.e.,  dies  of  a  broken  heart  behind  a  curtain,  and 
when  the  curtain  is  drawn  aside,  the  lady  takes  his  hand,  kisses  him 
and  dies  also. 

The  English  Restoration  dramatist  carries  what  might  be  called  the 
prosaic  interpretation  of  the  legend  a  step  further.  He  preserves 
Isabella's  Christian  name  and  nationality,  but  he  transfers  her  from 
Teruel  to  Brussels,  and  makes  her  a  runaway  nun1.  His  heroine  is  not 
a  despairing  maiden,  but  a  mourning  and  courted  widow,  and  the 
melodramatic  element  is  heightened  by  scenes  of  madness,  the  intro- 
duction of  hired  assassins,  by  the  machinations  of  a  stage  villain  and  by 
suicide.  While  Tirso  and  Montalvan  disregard  the  unity  of  time, 
Southerne's  play  does  not  cover  much  more  than  the  twenty-four  hours 
allowed  by  the  critical  doctrine  of  his  day.  The  English  playwright  is 
mainly  concerned  with  the  subject  of  the  third  'Jornada'  of  the  Spanish 
comedias,  namely,  his  heroine's  second  marriage,  and  her  earlier  elope- 
ment from  a  convent  is  only  lightly  touched  upon.  Isabella  appears 
here  as  a  distressed  widow  and  mother.  Her  broken  vows  are  urged 
against  her,  she  is  driven  to  despair  by  her  relentless  father-in-law  and 
by  his  fiendish  son,  and  her  innocent  child  is  threatened  with  starvation, 
all  before  she  consents  to  marry  her  second  suitor.  Thus  domestic 
interests  are  brought  into  the  foreground ;  the  English  playwright 
divides  his  heroine's  feelings  between  two  husbands  and  a  child,  and 
her  fidelity  to  her  first  love,  which  was  the  main  feature  of  the  original 
legend,  is  obscured. 

Southerne  again  differs  from  Tirso  and  Montalvan  in  the  choice  of 
the  agency  by  which  the  '  fatal  marriage ' — with  him  the  second — is 
brought  about.  In  Boccaccio's  tale  there  is  no  pledge  or  engagement. 
In  De  Guerta's  narrative  Isabella  marries  the  second  suitor  after  the 

1  Since  the  appearance  of  Marianna  d'Alcoforado's  love-letters,  translated  by  Eoger 
Lestrange  in  1678,  the  loves  of  nuns  were  a  favourite  theme  in  literature. 

23—2 


356         The  Source  of  Southerners  'Fatal  Marriage' 

lapse  of  the  seven  years  agreed  upon,  but  in  each  of  the  three  plays  an 
intrigue  is  introduced.  In  Tirso  de  Molina,  the  second  suitor,  Gonsalo, 
is  a  villain  and  has  a  messenger  bring  false  news  of  the  first  lover's 
death  ;  in  Montalvan  a  cousin  of  Isabella,  Elena,  who  is  herself  in  love 
with  the  absent  warrior,  plots  with  the  second  suitor  to  intercept  the 
letters  to  Isabella,  and  to  have  the  false  news  brought  to  her.  Southerne, 
while  retaining  the  story  of  the  intercepted  letters  and  the  lying 
messenger,  introduces  a  new  villain  to  carry  out  the  intrigue.  In  the 
English  play  an  obdurate  father-in-law  is  substituted  for  Isabella's  own 
father1,  and  the  war  takes  place  in  the  island  of  Candy  instead  of  Tunis  ; 
there  are  also  many  changes  in  the  minor  characters. 

Here  the  analogies  between  The  Fatal  Marriage  and  its  Spanish 
prototypes  come  to  an  end,  and  English  influences,  especially  of 
Shakspeare  and  Fletcher,  make  themselves  felt.  The  villain  Carlos,  for 
instance,  who  brings  about  the  catastrophe  reminds  us  of  Edmund  in 
Lear,  and  a  Shakspearian  touch  may  also  be  detected  in  the  despair  and 
madness  of  Isabella  after  her  first  husband  reappears. 

For  the  comic  underplot,  or,  as  it  is  called  in  the  Dedication  of 
The  Fatal  Marriage,  the  '  comedy,'  an  English  source  has  been  pointed 
out,  namely,  Fletcher's  Nightwalker,  or  the  Little  Thief.  This  play, 
indeed,  reads  like  a  burlesque  of  Boccaccio's  Girolamo  and  Salvestra 
and  its  Spanish  imitations  ;  like  The  Fatal  Marriage,  it  contains  two 
death  and  burial  incidents,  and  in  both  plays  a  miser  is  buried  alive  by 
his  own  son,  and  persuaded  that  he  belongs  to  the  nether  world  until  he 
promises  to  renounce  his  avarice. 

The  connection  between  Southerne's  play  and  Montalvan's  is  un- 
mistakable, but  the  question  is  naturally  still  open  whether  Southerne 
was  not  drawing  from  some  more  immediate  English  source  —  possibly 
even  from  some  lost  version  of  the  story  by  Mrs  Behn  herself.  Have 
there  been  English  stories  on  the  same  theme,  directly  or  indirectly 
descended  from  Decamerone,  iv,  8,  other  than  Roger  Lestrange's  Virgin 
Captive  and  Turberville's  doggrel  'tragical  tale'  of  Girolam  and 
Salvestra  ?  The  latter,  it  may  be  added,  is  of  no  account  in  the  present 
connection.  In  his  Dedication  Southerne  may  have  merely  intended  to 
pay  a  compliment  to  his  literary  friend  Mrs  Behn  ;  but  he  is  certainly 
not  likely  to  have  troubled  himself  either  to  conceal  or  discover  his 
indebtedness  to  Montalvan  or  any  other  Spanish  source. 

PAUL  HAMELIUS. 


1  In  Boccaccio  this  role  is  attributed  to  the  lover's  mother,  assisted  by  his  guardians  , 
or  '  tutors,  '  as  Turberville  calls  them. 


THE   TEXT   OF   'PIERS   PLOWMAN.' 

I.    THE  A-TEXT. 

THE  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  different  versions  of  Piers 
Plowman  has  recently  been  discussed  at  some  length  by  many  critics1, 
and  is  likely  to  give  rise  to  much  further  discussion  before  opinion 
settles  down  definitely  in  favour  of  either  '  one  author  or  five.'  It  is  not 
our  purpose  here  to  enter  into  that  controversy,  but  to  draw  attention 
to  certain  textual  problems  which  seem  hitherto  to  have  been  over- 
looked, but  which  nevertheless  affect,  to  a  very  considerable  degree,  the 
arguments  which  have  been  put  forward  upon  either  side. 

Professor  Manly  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  many  of  the 
minor  alterations,  generally  supposed  to  have  been  made  when  the 
work  was  recast  into  what  Professor  Skeat  has  named  the  B-text,  are 
really  to  be  found  in  certain  MSS.  of  the  A-text :  '  In  his  reworking  of 
the  poems  he  [the  author  of  the  B-text]  practically  disregarded 
passus  xii  and  changed  the  preceding  eleven  passus  by  insertions  and 
expansions.  Minor  verbal  alterations  he  also  made,  but  far  fewer  than 
is  usually  supposed.  Many  of  those  credited  to  him  are  to  be  found 
among  the  variant  readings  of  the  A-text,  and  were  merely  taken  over 
unchanged  from  the  MS.  of  A  used  as  the  basis2.'  This  would  seem  to 
clench  finally  the  argument  in  favour  of  multiple  authorship.  For 
these  variants  are  exceedingly  numerous :  they  often  involve  serious 
differences  of  sense  and  of  metre.  It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  the 
reviser,  had  he  been  the  original  author,  would  have  used  as  the  basis 
of  his  B-text  a  vicious  transcript  which  had  travelled,  by  successive 
corruptions,  so  far 'from  his  original  work. 

1  J.  M.  Manly  in  Modern  Philology,  January,  1906;  H.  Bradley  in  The  Athen<wm, 
April  21,  1906;  J.  M.  Manly  in  The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature,  vol.  n, 
1908;  Th.  Hall  in  The  Modern  Language  Review,  October,  1908;  J.  J.  Jusserand  in 
Modern  Philology,  January,  1909. 

-  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature,  n,  p.  23. 


358  The  Text  of 'Piers  Plowman' 

But  an  interpretation  of  the  phenomena  of  the  text,  quite  different 
from  that  assumed  by  Professor  Manly,  is  possible.  Do  these  so-called 
'  variants '  preserve  the  real  reading  of  the  original  A-text,  as  it  left  the 
author's  hands,  whilst  the  alternative  readings,  which  have  been  adopted 
in  the  received  A-text,  represent  the  variants  of  an  individual  MS.  or 
class  of  MSS.  ? 

It  has  not  been  recognized  that  the  received  A-text  is  not  an 
attempt  to  reconstruct  the  original  text,  as  written  by  the  poet.  It  is 
a  reprint  with  some  corrections  of  a  single  MS. — the  Vernon  (V) — which 
Prof.  Skeat  selected,  believing  that  its  readings  were,  'on  the  whole, 
better  than  those  of  any  other.'  Having  selected  this  MS.,  the  editor's 
object  was  to  print  it  with  as  few  corrections  as  might  be.  With  this 
object,  readings  admittedly  inferior  were  retained  in  the  text,  and  have 
been  reproduced  alike  in  the  Early  English  Text  and  in  the  Oxford 
editions1.  Nevertheless,  in  some  two  hundred  cases2,  that  is  approxi- 
mately once  in  every  dozen  lines,  the  reading  of  the  Vernon  MS.  had  to 
be  corrected  from  the  other  MSS. :  in  the  first  place  from  MS.  Harleian 
875  (H),  which  of  all  the  A-MSS.  agrees  most  closely  with  V:  from 
other  MSS.  where,  as  not  infrequently,  V  and  H  agree  in  an  impossible 
reading. 

It  is,  then,  a  grave  misapprehension  for  critics  to  speak  and  argue  as 
if  the  received  text  of  A  reproduced,  or  had  been  intended  to  reproduce, 
the  author's  exact  words,  and  could  thus  be  taken  as  a  criterion  of  his 
vocabulary  and  metrical  usage.  If,  in  two  hundred  places,  the  Vernon 
MS.  is  so  erroneous  that  an  editor,  determined  to  make  no  alteration 
unless  it  be  absolutely  necessary,  is  yet  compelled  to  fall  back  upon  the 
other  MSS.,  then  it  may  well  contain  a  thousand  or  more  uncorrected 
alterations  and  corruptions.  For,  to  every  one  instance  in  which  we  can 
detect  a  scribal  alteration  by  reason  of  its  intrinsic  absurdity,  there  may 
well  be  half  a  dozen  in  which  the  variant  is  not  so  seriously  inferior  as 
to  be  quite  untenable.  Hence  it  is,  and  has  long  been,  a  recognized 
principle  in  the  textual  criticism  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  classics,  that 
a  text,  which  adheres  to  one  MS.  in  every  case  except  where  the  reading 
of  that  one  MS.  is  untenable,  cannot  arrive  at  a  reconstruction  of  the 
original.  In  so  many  of  the  most  interesting  old  and  middle  English 
texts,  preserved  as  they  have  been  in  unique  MSS.,  we  are,  then,  entirely 
at  the  mercy  of  the  scribe,  and  can  only  resign  ourselves  to  the  certainty 

1  Cf.  the  critical  notes  in  the  E.E.T.S.  edition  of  the  A-text,  to  Pro.,  14,  75;  i,  39, 
79,  87,  135;  n,  9,  118,  129,  206;  m,  32,  174,  266—9;  and  especially  v,  125  where  Skeat 
states  '  My  object  is  to  avoid  alteration  as  much  as  possible.' 

2  Excluding  cases  where  a  whole  line  or  passage  is  inserted  from  other  MSS. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  359 

that,  whilst  that  scribe  has  made  many  alterations  which  we  can  detect, 
he  has  as  certainly  made  many  others  which  we  cannot,  and  that  therefore 
we  must  give  up  all  hope  of  getting  the  author's  exact  words  in  every  case. 
But  where,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  a  peculiarly  rich  supply  of  MSS., 
as  we  have  in  the  case  of  Piers  Plowman,  we  may  well  hope  to  correct 
even  the  minor  errors  of  the  one  by  comparison  with  the  others. 

There  are  fourteen  MSS.  of  the  A-text  of  Piers  Plowman.  A  com- 
plete collation  of  these  has  never  been  issued.  Professor  Skeat  appended 
to  his  reprint  of  the  Vernon  text  complete  collations  of  three  MSS.,  and 
partial  collations  of  two  others.  There  remain  eight  MSS.  scattered 
throughout  the  kingdom,  collations  of  which  have  not  been  published ; 
in  some  cases  because  Professor  Skeat  thought  them  of  only  secondary 
importance,  but  in  others1  because,  at  the  time  the  Vernon  text  was 
being  printed,  they  were  unknown.  And  indeed,,  so  long  as  the  A-text 
was  regarded  as  merely  the  first  rough  draft  of  a  poem,  afterwards 
reissued  authoritatively  by  its  author  in  complete  form  as  the  B-text,  it 
might  well  seem  an  effort  of  needless  curiosity  to  strive  to  fix,  to  an 
Ac  or  a  But  the  precise  wording  of  such  a  superseded  draft.  But 
now  that  it  is  being  argued  from  the  '  diction,  metre  and  sentence 
structure '  of  this  A-text,  that  its  author  cannot  have  been  the  reviser 
of  the  B-text,  it  becomes  important  to  fix,  with  the  utmost  possible 
precision,  the  exact  text  of  the  original  A- version.  We  therefore 
submit  the  following  notes,  which  are  founded  upon  our  own  transcripts 
and  collations  of  every  known  MS.  of  the  A-text2,  whether  good  or  bad. 

The  impression  created  when  the  A-  and  B-texts  are  read  side  by 
side  is  generally  that  the  A-text  is  inferior  in  both  metre  and  style. 
Many  passages,  vigorous,  energetic  and  metrically  correct  in  B,  are 
feeble  and  tentative  in  A.  Yet  this  impression  is  erroneous ;  for  if 
we  take  some  typical  instances  where  B  seems  most  clearly  to  have 
improved  upon  A,  we  shall  find  that  the  received  reading  of  A  is 
found  only  in  a  small  minority  of  the  A-MSS.,  and  that  the  bulk  of 
the  A-MSS.  have  the  so-called  B-reading.  Here  are  some  examples : 

(A  Pro.  76.)  Of  the  pardoner  who  makes  a  trade  of  absolving  men 
from  their  vows : 

Weore  Jfe  Bisschop  I-blesset  •  and  wor|>  bo]>e  his  Eres 
Heo  scholde  not  beo  so  hardi  •  to  deceyue  so  ]>e  peple. 

1  E.g.,  Westminster,  Ingilby,  Kawlinson,  Dublin. 

2  For  a  description  of  these  A-MSS.,  and  an  explanation  of  the  symbols  used  in  the 
footnotes,  see  below,  pp.  373  seq. ,  384.     In  the  notes  orthographic  variations  are  not 
recorded :  the  spelling  followed  is  that  of  the  MS.  first  quoted  of  each  group. 


."360  The  Text  of  'Piers  Plowman' 

The  plural  heo  is  strange,  for  the  author  is  speaking  only  of  one 
pardoner.  His  confederate,  the  parish  priest,  has  not  yet  been  mentioned. 
The  reading  of  the  B-text  is  at  once  more  lucid  and  more  vigorous :  '  If 
the  bishop  were  worth  his  ears ' — 

His  seel  shulde  nou3t  be  sent  •  to  deceyue  J>e  peple  (B  Pro.  79). 
And  this  is  also  the  reading  of  nine1  out  of  eleven  A-MSS. 

(A  i,  17 — 21.)     The  gifts  given  by  Truth  to  man : 

And  for  he  hihte  )>e  eor)>e  •  to  seruen  ow  vchone 

And  Comavwdet  of  his  Cortesye  •  In  Comune  )>reo  Binges ; 
Heore  nomes  be))  ueodful. 

Yet  it  is  not  the  names  of  the  things,  but  the  things  themselves  which 
are  needful :  serue  does  not  alliterate :  therefore  would  give  better  sense 
than  for.  All  these  are  found  improved  in  the  B-text,  and  in  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  A-MSS.2 : 

And  >erfore  he  hy3te  >e  erthe  •  to  help  3ow  vchone... 
And  comaunded  of  his  curteisye  •  in  comune  ]>ree  fringes  ; 
Arne  none  nedful  but  )>o 

(A  i,  34.) 

Al  nis  not  good  to  )>e  gost  •  )>at  ]>e  bodi  lyke)>. 

Instead  of  that  the  bodi  lyketh,  the  B-text,  and  nine  out  of  eleven 
A-MSS.3  give  that  the  gutte(s)  axeth  (lyketh),  which  is  metrically  superior. 

(A  I,  86.) 

For  hose  is  trewe  of  his  tonge  •  telle)>  not  elles, 

Do))  his  werkes  ]>er-vtith  •  and  do))  no  mon  ille, 

He  is  a-counted  to  ))e  gospel  •  on  groimde  and  on  lofte, 

And  eke  I-liknet  to  vr  lord  •  bi  seint  Lucus  wordes. 

Clerkes  pat  knowen  hit  •  scholde  techen  hit  aboute, 

For  Cristene  and  vn-cristene  •  him  cleymej)  vchone. 

The  repetition  of  doth  in  the  second  line  is  unsatisfactory,  with 
regard  alike  to  sense,  style  and  alliteration.  He  is  acounted  to  the 
gospel  is  barely  intelligible,  and  him  cleymeth  is,  as  we  choose  to 
interpret  it,  either  syntactically  wrong  or  an  anti-climax :  techen  does 

1  KUEITH2WDL;  As  is  here  defective ;  Dig  also  reads  scale;  but  Dig  is  here  rather  a  G 
than  an  A.-text;  V  and  H  alone  have  the  received  reading. 

2  therfore  BUEITHjDLDigH ;   for  V;  As  defective;  helpe(n)  EUEITHgDLDig ;  serue 
VHW.     U  is  corrupt  here. 

(n)ar(n)  non  nedful  but  j?o  (|?ei)  EUEITH2DL;  E  has  medful  miswritten  for  nedful;  so 
nedful  as  j?o  W;  Ther  ar  none  so  nedefnll,  Dig;  As  missing;  the  received  reading  is  given 
by  VH  only. 

3  gut  BEITH2WD,  guttes  Dig;    L   transposes  gost  and  gotte,  but  his  original  had 
obviously  the  same  reading  as  the  rest;   U  and  As  defective;   bodi  VH. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  361 

not  alliterate.  But  all  this  is  given  rightly  in  the  B-text,  and  in  the 
great  majority  of.  the  A-MSS.1: 

Who-so  is  trewe  of  his  tonge  •  &  telleth  none  other, 
And  doth  )>e  werkis  ]>er-with  •  and  wilneth  no  man  ille, 
He  is  a  god  bi  }>e  gospel  •  agrounde  and  aloft, 
And  ylike  to  owre  lorde  •  bi  seynte  lukes  wordes. 
pe  clerkes  j>at  knowej)  )>is  •  shulde  kenne  it  aboute 
For  cristene  and  vncristne  •  clame^  it  vchone. 

(A  i,  159—63.) 

For  lames  |>e  gentel  •  bond  hit  in  his  Book, 
That  [Fey]  witAouten  [fait]  •  Is  febelore  l>en  noujt, 
And  ded  as  a  dore  nayl  •  but  )>e  deede  folewe. 
Chastite  wiihouien  Charite  •  (wite  j>ou  forsoj>e) 
Is  as  lewed  as  a  Laumpe  •  that  no  liht  is  Inne. 

The  alliteration  of  the  first  line  is  improved  in  the  B-text : 

For  lames  >e  gentil  •  iugged  in  his  bokes. 
and  the  last  sentence  is  much  more  powerful : 

For-thi  chastite  with-oute  charite  •  worth  cheyned  in  helle  ; 
It  is  as  lewed  as  a  laumpe  •  that  no  Ii3te  is  Inne. 

But  both  these  readings  are  found  in  many  A-MSS.,  whilst  those  of  the 
received  A-text  are  only  found  in  two2,  the  former  indeed  only  in  one. 

(A  II,  5 — 6.)    The  words  of  Holy  Church  to  the  poet's  question  how 
he  may  know  Falsehood  : 

'  Loke  on  )>e  lufthond '  quod  heo  •  '  and  seo  wher  [he]  stondej), 
Bof>e  Fals  and  Fauuel  •  and  al  his  hole  Meyne.' 

Neither  line  alliterates  satisfactorily :  as  in  the  preceding  example  the 
received  text  of  A  seems  to  be  satisfied  with  separate  alliteration  within 
each  half  line.  More  correctly,  the  B-text  has : 

Loke  vppon  jn  left  half  •  and  lo  where  he  standeth, 
Bothe  fals  and  fauel  •  and  here  feres  manye. 

But  this  is  also  the  reading  of  the  bulk  of  the  A-MSS.3 

1  wilneth,  willeth  or  will  BEITH2WDLDig;  doth  VH.     Skeat,  though  reading  doth, 
prefers  willeth  (see  p.  139). 

a  god  by  \>e  gospel(es)  BETWDLDig ;  in  god  be  ye  gospell  I ;  good  be  gospel  H2 ; 
a-counted  to  J?e  gospel  VH.  kenne  BEITH2WDLDig;  techen  VH. 

cleymeth  hit,  clayme(n)  hit  EITH2WDLDigH;  him  cleymejj  V.  cleymej)  B.  U  and 
As  are  defective  here, 

2  jugyd,  jugyth  BUIWLDig As ;  demys  E  (written  for  jugys  by  the  common  interchange 
of  synonyms) ;  ioynide  TH2;  hath  wryten  D;  bond  hit  V;  H  has  seyth  in  later  hand  over 
erasure  :  the  last  three  letters  ide  of  the  original  are  just  perceptible. 

chenyd  in  hell  EITH2WDig,  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  right  A  reading  in  spite 
of  inferior  alliteration  is  not  schryned  in  Helle  BUL ;  shewed  in  helle  D ;  tenyd  in  helle  As ; 
wite  j?ou  forsoj>e  VH.  There  was  evidently  some  corruption  in  the  early  copies,  and  the 
scribe  of  the  MS.  from  which  V  and  H  alike  derive  altered,  according  to  his  custom,  a  word 
which  appeared  to  him  obscure  into  the  colourless  and  unmetrical  wite  thou  forsothe.  In 
helle  is  added  in  T  in  a  later  hand. 

3  quod  heo  (he,  sche)  omitted  BUTDLDig;   inserted  VHH2C7WT;    EAs  corrupt  here. 
Lo  ETH0WLAs;   seo,  se  VHUZTDIDig;   loke  E. 

his  (her)  feres  alle  (many)  BU f7EITH2WDLAs ;  Dig  omits  line;  al  his  hole  Meyne  VH. 


362  The  Text  of  ' Piers  Plowman' 

After  Mede's  wedding  has  been  forbidden  by  Theology,  Favel  rides 
with  the  rest  to  London,  according  to  the  received  A-text  feyntly  a-tyred 
(A  II,  140).  B  has  fetislich  (B  II,  165)  which  is  much  more  appropriate 
to  the  attire  of  one  who  was  to  give  the  bride  away.  And  this  is  the 
reading  of  seven  out  of  twelve  A-MSS.1 

When  Liar  escaped  to  the  friars,  they,  to  prevent  his  being  known 
by  all  comers,  according  to  the  received  A-text  Kepten  him  as  a  Frere 
(A  II,  206) ;  B  has  the  much  more  appropriate  coped  (B  II,  230)  which 
is  also  the  reading  of  twelve  out  of  thirteen  A-MSS.2 

(A  in,  32.)    Mede  promises  to  the  clerks  who  comfort  her : 
in  Constorie  at  Court  •  to  tellen  heore  names. 

In  B  the  alliteration  is  rectified  by  the  reading  do  calle  for  tellen.  Calle 
is  also  the  reading  of  nine  out  of  twelve  A-MSS.3 

(A  in,  35.)  Those  clerks  whom  Mede  loves  shall,  she  boasts,  be 
advanced,  where  cunning  clerks  shall  '  couche  behynde.'  Couche  Skeat 
interprets  '  lie  down  apart,  be  left  in  the  lurch,'  a  somewhat  forced  use 
of  the  word.  A  much  better  reading  is  clokke,  i.e.  '  limp '  (Fr.  cloquer) 
the. reading  of  B  and  of  nine  out  of  eleven  A-MSS.4 

(A  in,  231.)  Describing  the  two  kinds  of  Mede,  Conscience  contrasts 
with  the  true  Mede,  which  God  will  give,  the  False  Mede  beyond 

Measure : 

Bote  ]>er  is  a  Meede  Mesureles  •  J>at  Maystrie  desyret 
To  Meyntene  Misdoers  •  Meede  }>ei  taken. 

The  king  above  has  just  said  that  Mede  is  worthy  '  muche  maystrie  to 
haue '  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  Mede  Measureless  desires  mastery, 
or  to  whom  '  thei '  in  the  next  line  refers. 
The  B-text  reads : 

There  is  an-other  Mede  mesurelees  •  )>at  maistres  desireth 
To  meyntene  mysdoers  •  Mede  >ei  take. 

'  Another  Meed  which  magistrates  covet '  (for  masters  =  magistrates 
cf.  A  in,  67).  The  context  shows  the  B  reading  to  be  right.  It  is  also 
that  of  ten  out  of  twelve  A-MSS.6 

1  fetisliche  T WULDig ;  fetelych  I ;  fetyssy  B ;  fastlyche  D  ;  Hg  JMS  queyntliche,  having 
used  fetiliche  above.  Feyntliche  VHE.  As  is  wanting  here. 

-  copyd,  copide,  copeden,  capyd  RUEITH2WDHLDigAs;  V  alone  kepten.  See  also 
Skeat's  note,  p.  142. 

3  calle,  callen,  etc.  RUEITELjWLDig ;   As  wanting  here,     tellen  VH;   telle)>  D.     See 
Skeat,  p.  142. 

4  clocke,  klockyn,  etc.  RUITH2WLDDig ;  EAs  defective  Jiere ;  couche  VH. 

5  maysteres  EUEITH2WLDDig ;  maystrie  VH ;  As  wanting. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  363 

Instances  where  the  imperfect  alliteration  of  the  received  A-text  is 
corrected  in  B  are  very  numerous.  Here  are  some : 

pow  hast  honged  on  my  Nekke  •  Enleue  tymes  (A  in,  174). 

halfe  (or  halse)  for  Nekke  is  found  in  B"  and  in  ten  out  of  twelve 

A-MSS.1 

Among  >is  Riche  Rayes  •  lernde  I  a  Lessun  (A  v,  125). 
B  has  /  rendred,  as  have  eleven  out  of  thirteen  A-MSS.2 

For  his  wikkede  lyf  •  that  he  i-liued  hedde  (A  v,  217). 
B  has  lither  life,  as  have  eleven  out  of  thirteen  A-MSS.3 

For  nis  no  gult  her  so  gret  •  his  Merci  nis  wel  more  (A  v,  228). 
B  has  his  goodnesse,  as  have  eight  out  of  eleven  A-MSS.4 

Treu)/e  wolde  loue  me  ]>e  lasse  •  a  gret  while  after  (A  vi,  49). 
B  has  a  longe  tyme,  and  long  is  also  the  reading  of  eleven  out  of 
thirteen  A-MSS.5 

Bolde  Bidders  and  Beggers  •  J)«t  mowen  her  mete  biswircke  (A  vn,  202). 
B  has  her  bred  biswynke,  as  have  five  out  of  ten  A-MSS.6 

In  all  the  instances  given  above  there  is  a  strong  presumption  that 
the  difference  between  the  reading  of  the  received  text  of  A  and  that  of 
the  received  text  of  B  is  not  due  to  corruptions  in  the  MS.  which  the 
B-reviser  used,  but  rather  to  corruptions  in  the  Vernon  MS.  upon  which 
the  received  A-text  rests. 

It  is  not  merely  that,  of  the  twelve  or  thirteen  A-MSS.  available, 
all  but  two  in  most  cases  favour  the  B -reading.  For  numbers  in  this 
matter  do  not  count  for  all.  'MSS.  must  be  weighed  as  well  as  counted,' 
and  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  the  two  MSS.  might  preserve  the  correct 
reading,  and  the  ten  agree  in  a  corruption.  Until  we  have  weighed  the 
MSS.  we  have  no  right  to  argue  from  the  numerical  superiority  of  either 
group.  But  we  have  a  right  to  argue  that  the  reading  of  the  ten  is 
vigorous,  picturesque,  and  metrically  accurate,  that  of  the  two  common- 
place and  metrically  defective.  Anyone,  therefore,  who  believes  that 
the  received  text  of  A  reproduces  in  these  passages  the  original  author's 

1  half  RUEITH2WDLDig.    In  many  of  these  instances  the  reading  is  indisputably  halfe ; 
in  one  or  two  it  might  be  either  halfe  or  halse ;  As  is  wanting  ;  Nekke  VH. 

2  rendred  RUEITH2WDLDigAs ;  lernde  VH. 

3  lethyr,  lij>er  RUEITH2WDLDigAs;  wikkede  VH. 

4  godenesse  ITHoWDLDigAs ;  grace  E ;  Merci  VH ;  RU  omit  the  line. 

5  long  RUEITH2WDLDigAs;  gret  VH. 

6  bredRTLDigAs;  mete  VHUWI;  EH2  wanting  ;  D  corrupted. 


364  The  Text  of 'Piers  Plowman' 

words,  will  have  to  admit  that  that  text  received  material  improvements 
at  the  hands  of  a  scribe,  whose  phrasing  was  more  effective,  and  whose 
ideas  of  metre  were  more  strict,  than  were  those  of  the  original  author. 

Let  us  now  consider  some  cases  in  which  the  reading  of  the  majority 
of  the  A-MSS.,  which  is  followed  by  B,  must  clearly  be  the  original 
reading.  For  in  these  cases  the  reading  of  the  received  text  of  A 
(i.e.,  generally  that  of  V  and  H)  is  unintelligible  till  we  see  it  to  be 
a  corruption  of  the  reading  which  we  find  in  the  bulk  of  the  A-MSS., 
and  in  the  received  text  of  B. 

(A  i,  54.) 

For  Rihtfoliche  Resoun  •  schulde  rulen  ou  alle, 
And  kuynde  wit  be  wardeyn  •  owre  weolj>e  to  kepe, 
And  tour  of  vr  tresour  •  to  take  hit  [3ow]  at  nede. 

A  tower  may  keep  treasure,  but  it  cannot  possibly  hand  it  to  you  at 
need.  The  right  reading  is  obviously  tutour,  as  given  by  eight  out  of 
ten  A-MSS.1,  and  as  followed  in  the  B-text. 

(A  i,  104.) 

[For  crist,  kyngene  kyng  •  knyhtide  tene] 
Cherubin  and  Seraphin  •  an  al  >e  foure  ordres — 

There  are  either  nine  or  ten  angelic  orders,  according  as  the  lost  angels 
are,  or  are  not,  counted  as  a  separate  class. 

The  reading  an  al  the  foure  ordres  can  only  be  the  careless  writing 
of  a  scribe,  whose  mind  was  running  upon  the  four  orders  of  friars. 
The  right  reading  is  obviously  that  of  the  B-text : 

Cherubyn  and  seraphin  •  suche  seuene  and  an  othre 

thus  making  nine  orders  of  angels,  in  addition  to  the  tenth  order,  which 
fell.  And  this  reading,  or  a  corruption  of  it,  is  found  in  the  majority 
of  the  A-MSS.2 

(A  III,  41.)    The  corrupt  Friar  offers  to  shrive  Mede: 

I  schal  asoyle  J>e  my-self  •  for  a  suwime  of  whete. 

summe  is  a  manifest  miswriting  for  seem,  a  load,  which  is  the  reading  of 
eleven  out  of  thirteen  A-MSS.3,  and  of  the  B-text. 

(A  III,  73.)  Of  the  '  Brewsters,  Bakers,  Butchers  and  Cooks '  who 
adulterate  food : 

)>ei  punisschen  J>e  peple  priueliche.... 

1  RITH2WDLDig.    U  and  As  are  here  defective,  E  omits  the  word;  V  and  H  read  tour(e). 

2  such  seuene  &  a  nofyer,  TH2W ;  suche  seuene  &  o\>er  D ;  and  such  seuene  ojjer  KE ; 
and  siche  mo  o\>ere  U  ;  &  seuen  moo  oyere  I;  As  wanting;  L  also  makes  nine  orders.    The 
only  MSS.  giving  four  orders  are  V,  H  and  Dig. 

3  summe  VH ;  sem  BUEITH2WDLAsDig. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  365 

The  right  reading  is  obviously  poison,  as  B  and  nine  A-MSS.,  against 
one  which  reads  punisschen ;  punish  has  come  in  from  four  lines 
above1. 

(A  in,  122.)    Conscience  says,  accusing  Mede  before  the  king 
Vr  Fader  Adam  heo  falde  •  wi]>  Feire  biheste. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  Conscience  can  accuse  Mede  of  this  evil  act, 
which  was  the  deed  of  the  enemy  in  person.  Whatever  sins  may  have 
contributed  to  Adam's  fall,  Bribery  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  played 
any  part.  The  true  reading  is  clearly : 

Your  fadir  sche  fellide  •  J>urw  false  byhestes 

and  '  Your  father '  is  the  reading  of  nine  out  of  twelve  A-MSS.,  followed 
by  B.  The  reference  is  to  the  death  of  Edward  II,  for  it  is  abundantly 
clear  from  the  allusions  to  the  French  campaign  that  the  king  of  the 
allegory  is  Edward  III.  But  that  several  scribes  did  not  understand 
the  passage  as  a  reference  to  Edward  II  is  certain :  one  boldly  alters 
'  your  father  she  felled '  into  '  many  men  she  fells.'  The  scribe  of  the 
Yernon  MS.  is  however  alone  in  his  attempt  to  explain  the  allusion  as 
a  reference  to  Adam's  fall2. 

That  the  reference  is  to  Edward  II  rather  than  to  Adam  is  clear 
also  from  Mede's  defence ;  for  she  understands  'Your  father'  as  referring, 
not  to  Adam,  but  to  a  king : 

(A  in,  180.) 

For  Guide  I  neuere  no  kyng  •  ne  cou?iseilede  per- after ; 
Ne  dude  i  neuere  as  >ou  dust  •  I  do  hit  on  J>e  kyng. 

But  here  there  is  a  further  corruption :  /  never  did  as  thou  dost  or  didst 
gives  no  meaning,  we  want  as  thou  judgest :  and  this  is  the  reading  of 
nine  out  of  twelve  A-MSS.,  and  of  the  B-text : 

Ne  dide  as  >ou  demist  •  I  do  hit  on  J>e  kyng3. 

1  poysone  EUEITH2DLDig;  perrechyn  As  through  the  scribe's  eye  catching  rechyn  in 
the  line  below;  appose  altered  to  appresse  W.  pylen  H;  punisschen  V  only. 

3  3our  fadir  sche  fellide  UREIH2WDL ;  As  is  missing  here ;  T  has  3oure  fadir  he 
fellide ;  H  fele  men  heo  fallib ;  Dig  our  Father  sche  fylyd ;  V  alone  has  Vr  Fader  Adam 
heo  falde.  Skeat  points  out  (Clarendon  Press  edition,  vol.  n,  p.  45)  that  the  reading  of 
the  received  A-text  must  here  be  erroneous.  Cf.  too  on  this  point  a  most  valuable  article 
by  E.  Teichmann  in  Anglia,  xv,  224 — 5.  Teichmann  obviously  doubted  whether  the 
Verhon  MS.  justifies  the  confidence  which  has  been  placed  in  its  text  of  Piers  Ploivman. 

3  demest  UEITH2WDLDig  ;  dost  RV  ;  didest  H ;  As  wtg. 


366  The  Text  of  ' Piers  Plowman' 

The  conclusion  of  the  indictment  of  Mede  by  Conscience  in  the 
received  A-text  is  hardly  intelligible  (in,  264): 

De  Culorwm  of  ]>is  [clause]  •  kepe  I  not  to  schewe, 
In  Auenture  hit  [nuy3ed]  me  •  an  ende  wol  1  make : 
IT  And  riht  as  Agag  hedde  •  hapne  schulle  suwime ; 
Samuel  schal  slen  him  •  and  Saul  schal  be  blamet, 
Dauid  schal  ben  Dyademed  •  and  daunten  hem  alle, 
And  on  cristene  kyng  •  kepen  vs  vchone. 
Concience  knowe>  J>is;   for  kuynde  wit  me  tau3te 
pat  Resun  schal  regne  •  and  Reames  gouerne. 

Lines  have  been  misplaced :  the  passage  should  run  as  it  does  in  the 
B-text,  and  in  eleven  out  of  thirteen  A-MSS. 

The  culorum  of  )>is  cas  •  kepe  I  noiyte  to  shewe ; 
An  auenture  it  noyed  men  •  none  ende  wil  I  make.... 
I  Conscience  knowe  J>is  •  for  kynde  witt  me  it  tau3te 
That  resouTi  shal  regne  •  and  rewmes  gouerne ; 
And  ri3te  as  agag  hadde  •  happe  shul  sowme 
Samuel  shal  sleen  hym  •  and  Saul  shal  be  blamed 
And  dauid  shal  be  diademed  •  and  daunten  hem  alle, 
And  one  cristene  kynge  •  kepen  hem  alle1. 

Among  the  disreputable  company  in  the  Alehouse  is  given 

(A  v,  164.) 

Dauwe  )>e  disschere. 

But  this  is  clearly  wrong,  for  we  have  '  Rose  J?e  disschere '  only  two  lines 
below.  The  scribe's  eye  has  caught  the  second  word  and  he  has  mis- 
written  Dawe's  occupation.  Dawe  is  a  ditcher,  not  a  dish-seller :  he  is 
mentioned  subsequently  ('  Dawe  ]?e  dyker '  B  vi,  331  '  Dawe  }>e  deluere ' 
C  ix,  354).  And  dykere  is  the  reading  of  the  B-text  and  of  eight  out 
of  thirteen  A-MSS.2 

(A  vin,  29 — 35.)  Among  the  works  of  public  munificence  by  which 
merchants  may  make  friends  of  mammon,  are  mentioned,  together  with 
the  building  of  hospitals  and  bridges,  and  the  endowing  of  nuns,  widows 
and  scholars : 

And  wikkede  wones  •  wihtly  to  amende... 
Rule  Religion  •  and  Rente  hem  betere. 

1  RUEITHjjWDLADig ;  VH  alone  have  wrong  order. 

Some  confusion  was  caused  by  the  scribes  forgetting  that  Conscience  is  speaking: 
I  consciens  is  found  only  in  IWLHAs.  D  reads  yf  concieuce.  Elsewhere  it  is  generally 
corrupted  to  'In  conciens  knowe  I'  RTHgUDig;  E  omits  the  second  I. 

2  dykere   BUITHgWDDig ;    L  is  corrupt  here,   AsE   have  drynkere,  which  no  doubt 
describes  Dawe  accurately  enough,  but  would  not  sufficiently  differentiate  him  from  his 
fellows  in  the  tavern;  VH  alone  disschere.     Here  again,  cf.  Skeat's  note,  (Cl.  Press),  p.  91, 
and  Teichmann  in  Anglia  xv,  p.  226. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  367 

Wones  cannot  be  right.  To  keep  one's  property  in  repair  is  only  an  act 
of  common  sense.  The  right  reading  must  be  wikked  wayes,  as  in  B 
and  eleven  out  of  twelve  A-MSS.1 

Merchants  obviously  do  not  rule,  but  relieve,  religious  houses,  as  in 
B  and  eight  out  of  eleven  A-MSS.2 

(A  viii,  79.)  Beggars  mutilate  their  children,  in  order  that  they 
may  beg  the  better,  for 

ben  mo  mis-happes  amongws  hem  •  hose  take])  heede 
ten  of  alle  ojmre  men  •  J>at  on  Molde  wandren. 

Skeat  explains  '  they  are  always  meeting  with  accidents '  which  hardly 
agrees  with  the  context.  The  B-text  has  There  is  moo  mysshape  peple 
— that  there  are  more  deformed  among  them  than  among  other  folk  is 
a  proof  that  they  mutilate  their  children.  And  this  is  the  reading  of 
eight  out  of  eleven  A-MSS.3 

Notwithstanding  these  and  similar  blemishes,  the  merits  of  the 
Vernon  text  are  undeniable.  Yet  the  very  goodness  of  the  Vernon  MS., 
when  regarded  as  an  isolated  version,  sometimes  diminishes  its  value 
as  a  means  of  restoring  the  original  text  of  the  poem.  For  the 
intelligibility  of  Vernon  is  often  the  result  of  the  scribe  or  his  pre- 
decessor having  deliberately  smoothed  away  the  difficulties  he  found 
in  his  original.  It  is  natural  that  a  scribe,  engaged  in  copying  and 
turning  into  his  own  speech  poems  often  written  in  widely  differing 
dialects,  should  become  something  of  an  editor.  Sometimes  he  makes 
a  slip,  and  we  can  detect  him  at  work.  We  have  seen  how,  not 
understanding  the  reference  to  Mede  having  slain  King  Edward  II, 
he  made  her  slay  father  Adam4. 

Again,  turn  to  viii,  106,  where  the  author  obviously  wrote : 

pe  prophete  his  payn  eet  •  in  penauns  and  wepyng.... 
Fuerunt  michi  lacrime  panes 

a  reading  which  is  kept  in  MSS.  U,  I,  L. 

But  the  word  payn  was  evidently  not  understood,  and  most  of  the 
scribes  bungled  over  it.  T  has  nonsense,  the  prophet  his  peyned,  R  has 
only  very  halting  sense,  the  prophete  his  peyne  hath5.  Alone  among  the 

1  wyckede  weyes  KUITH2WDLADigH;  wones  V;  E  wanting  here. 

2  releyue  EITH2DLDigH;  rule  UWV;  EAs  wanting  here. 

3  mysshape,  myschapyn  KUITWDL ;  mishappesVH;  myschapmen  H2 ;  EAs  wanting ; 
mischefes  Dig. 

4  That  this  is  the  work  of  the  V,  and  not  of  the  common  original  of  V  and  H  is  clear: 
for  H,  equally  puzzled,  has  edited  the  passage  in  another  and  even  more  violent  way 
'many  men  she  fells.'     H  goes  further,  and  also  smoothes  away  the  subsequent  passage 
where  Mede  defends  herself  from  the  charge  of  having  killed  the  king.    V,  more  honest  than 
his  fellow  H,  has  abstained  from  telling  a  second  lie  to  cover  up  the  tracks  of  his  first. 

8  Over  an  erasure.     Probably  the  scribe  first  wrote  penaunce. 


368  The  Text  of  'Piers  Plowman ' 

MSS.  of  the  first  class  V  and  H  have  not  only  'sophisticated'  the  passage, 
but  have  done  so  cleverly.  V  has  'The  prophetes  peyneden  hem  •  in 
penaunce  and  wepyng.'  H  has,  still  more  ingeniously  '  Ther  is  profyt  in 
peyne '  etc. 

It  is  the  very  cleverness  of  these  plausible  corruptions  which  makes 
their  danger.  A  scribe  who  is  intelligent  enough  to  do  this  kind  of 
thing,  is  likely  to  mislead  us  more  than  a  bungler  who  copies,  more  or 
less  incorrectly,  the  text  before  him.  What  Dr  Moore  has  remarked 
of  the  early  MSS.  of  the  Divine  Comedy  is  equally  true  of  the  MSS.  of 
Piers  Plowman :  their  writers  are  not  exact  copyists,  but  editors, 
although  working  without  an  editor's  sense  of  responsibility.  But 
whilst  this  applies,  to  some  extent,  to  all  the  MSS.,  it  is  particularly 
applicable  to  Vernon,  and  to  one  or  two  others,  including  Vernon's 
nearest  relative,  Harleian  875  (H),  which  is  perhaps  more  given  to 
editing  than  even  V,  though  there  is  not  space  to  quote  instances  here. 

Had  this  been  all,  it  might  have  been  possible  to  correct  V  and  H, 
the  one  from  the  other.  But  unfortunately  it  is  clear  from  the  instances 
quoted  above,  where  V  and  H  so  often  agree  in  one  and  the  same 
variant,  that  the  common  ancestor  of  V  and  H  was  also  an  'edited'  MS., 
whose  scribe  was  ready  to  replace  a  difficult  or  perhaps  corrupt  word  by 
a  commonplace  tag.  Many  further  examples  of  this  might  be  quoted. 
Theology  forbids  the  marriage  between  Mede  and  False;  for  Mede  is 
a  lady,  the  daughter  of  Amends — just  compensation — and  God's  will  is 
that  she  should  be  wedded  to  Truth.  The  passage  runs  in  B,  as  it 
probably  ran  in  the  original  A : 

For  Mede  is  moylere  •  of  Amendes  engendred, 

And  god  grauntetb  to  gyf  •  Mede  to  Treuthe.     (B  n,  119.) 

But,  though  a  very  early  corruption,  which  all  but  one  or  two  A-MSS. 
share,  (A)mendes  was  altered  to  the  senseless  Frendes1.  The  scribe 
whose  work  underlies  VH,  tried  to  make  sense  by  a  reckless  alteration 
of  the  passage.  At  the  same  time  he  corrupted  the  word  moylere,  which 
apparently  he  did  not  understand.  So  the  passage  ran  in  the  archetype 
ofVandH: 

For  Mede  is  a  Medeler  •  a  Mayden  of  goode, 

God  graunte  us  to  giue  her  •  ther  treuthe  wol  asigne  [or  assente]. 

The  Vernon  scribe  did  not  understand  Medeler,  and  so  altered  to 
luweler,  i.e.,  one  bedecked  with  or  owning  jewels,  a  word  appropriate 

1  For  mede  is  (a)  muliere  of  frendis  engendryt  EUTH2D  :  E  tries  to  improve  the  sense 
by  altering  frendis  to  fendes.  LIDig  give  the  right  reading  Mendes,  but  almost  certainly 
in  Dig,  possibly  in  I,  this  may  be  regarded  as  the  correction  of  a  scribe  who  supplied  the 
right  word  from  his  knowledge  of  a  B  or  C  text.  Ashmole  is  defective  here. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  369 

enough  to  Mede  in  general,  though  certainly  not  in  this  context.  Hence 
we  get  the  reading  of  the  received  A-text : 

For  Meede  is  a  luweler  •  A  Mayden  of  goode, 

God  graunte  vs  to  3iue  hire  •  ther  treuj>e  wol  asigne. 

Or  again,  in  v,  129,  the  poet  seems  to  have  written 

My  wyf  was  a  wy?mestre  and  wollen  clof>  made  (so  RETDL), 

wynster  meaning  a  woman  making  money.  We  have  not  met  the  word 
elsewhere,  but  it  seems  a  quite  possible  one,  and  is  supported  by  the 
use  of  winner  meaning  a  workman  ('winners  with  handen'  C  I,  222)  and 
win  meaning  to  earn  one's  living  (A  I,  153).  Yet  we  can  understand 
the  scribes  being  puzzled  by  the  word,  and  altering  it.  U  changes  to 
the  senseless,  but  graphically  very  close  breustere :  more  intelligently 
IH2WDigAs  have  webstere,  webbere1  etc.  But  the  scribe  whose  work 
underlies  V  and  H,  was  not  satisfied  with  so  simple  an  alteration.  He 

wrote  : 

And  my  wyf  at  Westmunstre  •  that  wollene  cloth  made. 

Most  of  the  scribes  were  puzzled  by  the  name  of  one  Waryn  Wisdom, 
who,  with  Witty,  rides  to  court  (iv,  24  etc.).  Waryn  was  not  understood 
as  a  proper  name,  and  corrupted  to  were,  warned,  wary.  The  ancestor  of 
V  and  H  remedied  the  passage  by  making  Wisdom  and  Witty  ride  to 
court  on  a  wayn. 

Many  other  instances  of  this  '  editing '  might  be  quoted :  the  most 
striking,  however,  is  in  Passus  x,  188,  etc.,  where  the  poet  speaks  of  the 
ill-assorted  marriages  of  folk  who  will  never  win  the  Dunmow  flitch 
without  perjury: 

?ei}  j)ei  don  hem  to  dunmowe  but  3if  ]>e  deuil  helpe 
o  folewe  aftir  J>e  flicche  fecche  >ei  it  neuere 
But  3if  >ei  bo}>e  be  forsworn  >at  bacoun  >ei  tyne. 
For  )>i  I  counseile  alle  cristene  couette  not  be  weddid 
ffor  coueitise  of  catel  or  of  kynrede  riche ; 
But  maidenis  and  maidenis  macche  3ow  ysamme 
Wydeweris  &  wydewis  werchij)  ri3t  also 
And  glade  30  god  ]>at  al  good  sendij)2. 

1  This  seems  simpler  than  the  alternative  supposition  that  RETDL  independently 
agreed  in   corrupting   the   familiar   ivebster  into    the   unfamiliar  winster.     Also,   if  the 
original  reading  were  webster,  we  should  have  no  reason  for  the  variants  of  U  and  VH. 
The  confusion  of  the  MSS.  shows  that  the  original  reading  must  have  been  a  difficult  and 
puzzling  one.     Had  winster  been  found  only  in  one  group  of  MSS.  and  webster  in  the 
others,  we  might  have  supposed  that  webster  had  been  corrupted  to  winster  through  the 
scribe's  eye  catching  spinster  immediately  below.     But  EETDL  are  no  single  group. 

2  ]>eij]  om.  BUDAsW.     don  hem]  hiden  hem  EU  ;  be  don  D ;  hien  hym  welfast  W. 
dunmowe']  don  now  I.     but... helpe]  om.  W.     }if]  om.  UI.     \>e  deuil]  dowel  As.    folewe 

aftir]  fechen  W. 

flicche]  flesche  B,  flysh  W.    fecche]  fatte  As  cache  W.     }if]  om.  UAsW.     }>ei]  om.  As. 
forsworn]  forswon  B. 

M.  L.  R.  IV  24 


370  The  Text  of  l Piers  Plowman' 

So  the  passage  runs  in  the  MS.  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge :  the 
variants  of  the  other  MSS. — except  V — are  given  below.  The  variants 
of  the  Ingilby  scribe  show  that  he  or  his  original  did  not  understand  the 
allusion  to  Dunmow,  and  objected  to  applying  the  word  maiden  to 
a  bachelor.  Ingilby  therefore  corrupts  (probably  unintentionally) 
dunmow  to  don  now,  and  (intentionally)  maidenis  to  sengil. 

But  the  Vernon  text  represents  the  version  of  a  scribe  who  was  not 
content  to  copy  faithfully  an  unintelligible  passage.  He  makes  it  bear 
a  superficial  appearance  of  sense. 

pau}  ]>ei  don  hem  to  done  •  al  j>at  J>ei  mowen 

To  folewen  aftur  ]>e  Flucchen  •  feccke  J>ei  hit  neuere 

Bote  3if  pel  boj>e  ben  forswore  •  and  Cursen  )>at  tyme. 

ForJ>i  1  Counseile  alle  Cristene  •  coueite  not  ben  I-weddet 

For  Couetyse  of  Catel  •  ne  of  kun  Riche, 

Bote  Maydens  and  vn-Maydens  •  clene  ow  saue 

Widewers  and  widewes  •  worschupej?  also 

And  )>enne  glade  36  god  •  )>at  alle  goodes  sendej>. 

We  cannot  be  certain  if  this  last  piece  of  editing  is  due  to  V  or  to 
the  common  source  of  VH,  for  H  is  here  wanting.  In  view  of  the  other 
instances  quoted,  however,  it  is  most  likely  that,  if  we  had  H,  we  should 
find  him  erring  with  V. 

But  not  only  does  this  common  source  edit  corrupt  passages :  the 
scribe  has  another  serious  fault,  that  of  substituting  one  synonym  for 
another,  more  particularly  with  a  view  to  excluding  a  word  which  he 
does  not  like,  even  at  the  expense  of  ruining  the  alliteration.  This  is 
a  common  fault,  but  the  VH  scribe  seems  to  have  possessed  it  to  an 
uncommon  degree1.  The  most  characteristic  instance  is  the  systematic 
substitution  of  teach  for  ken. 

for  jn]  \>er  for  I,  om.  As. 

couette]  j>ei  couyte  B.    be]  to  be  BUAsDigW;  wedded  begins  next  line  in  W;  to  wedde  D. 

or  of]  or  for  RU ;  ne  of  IDigW ;  and  of  As.     kynrede]  kyn  IW. 

maidenis  and  maidenis]  sengil  and  madenys  I ;  maydenis  As. 

macche  3010  ysamme]  3ow  to  same  takyn  BU;  marie  3011  togyderis  H2;  makkyth  3011 
same  I ;  mache  3011  J>e  same  D ;  matche  you  togeders  Dig  W ;  meke  3011  to  gederis  As. 

wydeweris  &  wydewis]  transposed  I.  ri)t  also]  30  al  so  BU;  the  same  H2;  right  so 
Dig ;  30  J>e  same  AsW.  And]  J?anne  BU  ;  and  }>an  I,  DigW. 

\>at  al  good  sendty]  and  alle  goode  saintz  W.    good]  godes  BUI.    As  omits  the  last  line. 

1  Pro.  14  tryly,  tritely  BUETHgWDig.  The  word  was  a  difficult  one,  for  IDL  alter  to 
trulyche,  treoweliche,  etc.  ;  wonderliche  VH.  As  is  wanting  in  the  Prologue. 

Pro.  41  bratful  bredful  BUTHoDL.  This  again  was  clearly  a  difficult  word,  for  E  reads 
with  bred  full  and  WIDig  ful,  fully;  faste  VH.  Of  bred  ful  is  also  the  reading  of  the 
received  text  of  the  B  version :  bretful  reappears  in  the  C-text. 

Sometimes  the  alteration  of  the  VH  scribe  appears  quite  wanton,  as  when  he  changes 
hold  to  give  (i,  9,  hold  }>ei  no  tale  BUEITHjWDLDig :  3euef>  }>ei  no  tale  VH ;  As  wanting) 
or  wisse  to  teach  (i,  72  wyssed  etc.  BEITH,WDLDig;  techej?  V  tawght  H;  UAs  wanting) 
or  tie  to  bind  (i,  94  tei3e  hem  faste  BEITH2DLDig ;  bynde(n)  VHW ;  UAs  wanting)  or 
catel  to  meed  (iv,  69  catel  BUEITHjWDLDigAs ;  meede  VH).  Whilst  the  interchange  of 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  371 

These,  and  other  instances  too  numerous  to  quote,  throw  suspicion 
upon  V,  H,  and  their  common  source.  However  plausible  be  the  text 
presented  by  V  and,  in  the  main,  supported  by  H,  we  cannot  accept  it 
without  demur  when  we  see  that  the  scribes  of  these  MSS.  were 
improvers,  who  took  such  great  liberties  with  their  originals.  And  the 
support  which  V  receives  from  H,  and  in  virtue  of  which  Skeat  often 
allows  a  doubtful  V-reading  to  stand,  is  invalidated  when  we  see  that  V 
and  H  alike  go  back  to  a  somewhat  corrupt  original. 

But,  further,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  V  has  even  the  character 
which  we  have  hitherto  allowed  it,  of  presenting  a  text  better  in  itself 
— or  at  least  more  plausible — than  that  of  the  other  MSS.  Here  it  is 
difficult  to  avoid  arguing  in  a  circle.  The  best  MSS.  are  clearly  those 
which  give  the  best  readings :  and  in  deciding  what  are  the  best 
readings  we  shall  ultimately  have  to  place  much,  though  not  all,  our 
reliance  upon  the  evidence  of  what  we  have  decided  to  be  the  best  MSS. 
The  four  MSS.  which  Skeat  selected,  with  justice,  as  being  the  four  best 
available  when  he  printed  the  A-text  were : 

V.  The  Vernon  MS.  in  the  Bodleian,  wanting  after  xi,  180 
(see  Skeat,  pp.  xv — xvii). 

H.  Harl.  875  in  the  British  Museum,  wanting  after  vm,  144 
(see  Skeat,  pp.  xvii — xviii). 

T.     Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  R.  3.  14  (see  Skeat,  pp.  xviii — xix). 

U.     University  College,  Oxford  (see  Skeat,  pp.  xix — xx). 

Let  us  examine  the  individual  readings  of  each  of  these  MSS.  on 
their  own  merits,  trying  not  to  allow  ourselves  to  be  influenced  by 
considerations  drawn  from  the  number  of  MSS.  which  agree  or  disagree 
in  each  case.  The  results  will,  of  course,  be  quite  provisional,  for 

synonyms  is  a  general  fault,  the  source  of  VH  was  peculiarly  addicted  to  it,  as  is  shown  by 
the  following  examples,  in  all  of  which  the  alliteration  demands  ken  not  teach : 

i,  79  kenne  EITH2WLDig;  teche  VHRD;  UAs  wanting. 

i,  90  kenne  KEITH2WDLDig ;  VH  teche;  UAs  wtg. 

i,  127  kenne  UITH2WDLDig ;  teche  VHB ;  lere  E  ;  As  wtg. 

n,  4  ken  RUUEITH2WDLDigAs;  teche  VH. 

vi,  30  kennyd,  etc.  RUETH2WDLDigAs  ;  taujte  VHI. 

vn,  23  kennest  RUEILDigAsH ;  techest  VTHqWD. 

vn,  25  keune  UEITH2WDLDigAs;  kene  R;  teche  V;  H  wtg. 

vm,  120  kennyd  UITfJ2WDLDig ;  taujte  VHRAs ;  E  wtg. 

ix,  50  bekenne  RUITH2WDigAs ;  beotake  V;  ELH  wtg. 

Skeat  points  out  in  his  critical  notes  (A-text  E.E.T.S.,  p.  139)  that  in  i,  79,  90, 127  we 
might  with  advantage  read  kenne,  but  adds  'I  have  preferred  leaving  the  text  intact  to 
making  three  alterations.'  Yet  in  point  of  fact  there  is  less  violence  in  making  three 
alterations  than  in  making  one.  The  case  for  alteration  is  strengthened  with  each 
succeeding  instance  in  which  we  find  Vernon  reading  teach  and  the  alliteration  demanding 
ken :  in  the  later  passus  Skeat,  in  fact,  usually  abandons  the  Vernon  reading  in  these  cases. 

24—2 


372  The  Text  of  '  Piers  Plowman ' 

subsequently  MS.  authority  may — and  indeed  will — lead  us  to  think 
that  in  some  cases  what  we  have  condemned  as  the  inferior  reading, 
must  be  the  actual  words  of  the  original  writer,  and  that  what  we  have 
regarded  as  the  better  reading,  is  only  the  felicitous  corruption  of  an 
isolated  scribe.  But  we  cannot  invoke  MS.  authority  yet:  we  have 
still  to  decide  where  it  lies. 

If,  up  to  the  point  where  Vernon  breaks  off,  we  compare  it  with  the 
other  three  MSS.  which  Skeat  collated  with  it,  we  get  the  following 

results : 

In  V.     In  H,  up  to     In  T.        In  U. 
vm,  1441. 

1.  Necessary  lines  or  words  omitted  32  16  17  34 

2.  Good  lines  or  words  omitted         33  20  18  29 

3.  Reading  distinctly  inferior          208  194  131  217 

4.  Reading  somewhat  inferior           44  42  42  47 

From  classes  2  and  4  we  cannot  with  safety  argue ;  for  a  quite  good 
line  or  word  may  be  due  to  interpolation  in  a  certain  group  of  MSS. 
rather  than  to  deficiency  in  the  others.  When  the  sense  or  the 
alliteration  appears  to  demand  a  word  or  a  reading,  we  can  argue  with 
greater  approximation  to  certainty ;  thus  adding  together  classes  1  and 
3  we  get : 

Against  V     240  errors 

„       H    210       „ 

„       T     148       „ 

„      U     251       „ 

But  U  has  gaps  of  some  120  lines,  and  H  of  some  630.  If  we  allow  U 
an  average  of  13  blunders  for  these  lost  passages  and  H  an  average  of  77, 
we  get  the  following  results,  grouping  the  MSS.  in  order  of  merit  on  the 
strength  of  our  rough  test. 

T  148  errors 

V  240      „ 

U  264      „ 

H  287      „ 

Of  course  no  exact  value  can  be  claimed  for  these  figures,  but  this 
examination  has  satisfied  us  that  V  has  no  extraordinary  value,  above 
TU  and  H. 

But  the  real  question  is  not  the  value  of  any  individual  MS.,  but  of 

1  Where  H  breaks  off. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  373 

each  group.  There  is  no  necessity  to  argue,  what  has  been  recognized 
by  all  students  of  the  subject,  that  V  and  H  form  one  group  and  T  and 
U  another.  If  anyone  wishes  to  satisfy  himself  of  this  afresh,  five 
minutes'  study  of  Skeat's  footnotes,  taken  at  random  anywhere,  would 
prove  it.  By  a  comparison  of  V  with  H  and  of  T  with  U  we  can 
eliminate  the  more  obvious  blunders  peculiar  to  the  later  scribes,  and 
get  a  good  idea  of  the  original  MSS.  from  which  each  pair,  VH  and 
TU,  ultimately  derive. 

But  in  the  VH  group  this  comparison  can  only  go  as  far  as 
Passus  vin,  144,  where  H  breaks  off  suddenly,  leaving  V  for  the 
rest  of  the  poem  unsupported.  Examining  the  blunders  up  to  this 
point  charged  against  V  and  H,  we  find  that  63  were  common  to  both, 
and  were  therefore  presumably  inherited  from  the  common  ancestor, 
which  we  will  call  p. 

Of  the  blunders  made  up  to  this  point  by  T  and  U,  only  22  are 
common  to  both,  and  therefore  presumably  inherited  from  their  common 
original,  which  we  will  call  T. 

We  can  therefore  correct  f  from  r  some  three  times  as  often  as  we 
can  correct  T  from  f.  r,  having  fewer  blunders  is,  then,  presumably 
nearer  to  the  original  archetype  of  the  A -text. 

On  the  evidence,  then,  of  the  four  MSS.  of  which  full  collations 
have  been  published,  we  are  led  to  suspect  that,  whilst  neither  the  TU 
tradition  nor  the  VH  tradition  is  to  be  despised  in  our  search  after  the 
original  A-text,  the  greater  weight  is  to  be  placed  upon  the  TU 
tradition. 

Yet  this  tradition  has  hitherto  been  quite  neglected,  except  in  those 
few  cases  where  the  reading  of  VH  was  so  obviously  wrong  as  to  compel 
recourse  to  it1. 

A  survey  of  the  MSS.  which  have  hitherto  been  only  partially  or  not 
at  all  collated  will,  we  think,  strengthen  the  impression  already  gained, 
of  the  weight  of  the  TU  tradition2. 

1  Passages  where  there  appears  to  be  a  corruption  or  confusion  common  to  both  VH 
and  TU  are,  for  the  present,  left  out  of  consideration. 

2  Current  knowledge  of  these  MSS.  rests  upon  the  examination  of  them  made  by 
Skeat  at  different  times,  the  results  of  which  were  published,  some  in  his  A-text  (E.E.T.S.), 
and  some  in  his  Parallel  Extracts.     These  results  are  necessarily  tentative,  but  cautious, 
and,  so  far  as  they  attempt  to  go,  exceedingly  valuable.     An  elaborate  tree,  showing  the 
interdependence -of  the  fourteen  A-MSS.,  has  been  published  by  Dr  Kron  in  his  William 
Langleys  Buch  von  Peter  dem  Pfliiger,  1885.     This  has  been  accepted  as  authoritative  by 
Brandl  (D.L.Z.,  1886,  p.  518),  and  even  by  Skeat,  who  says  'Dr  Kron... has  examined  the 
less  important  MSS.  with  greater  care  than  I  gave  to  them....     I  therefore  follow  his 
classification.' 

Dr  Kron  appears  to  have  seen  most  of  the  MSS.;  but  he  has  not  recorded  a  single 
reading  of  a  single  A-MS.  which  he  has  not  derived  from  Skeat.  Indeed  he  admits  (p.  20) 


374  The  Text  of  'Piers  Plowman' 

Some  of  these  uncollated  MSS.  are  merely  descendants  of  T,  and 
therefore  only  prove  that  r  was  more  prolific  than,  not  necessarily 
superior  to,  f.  Yet  these  MSS.  are  worth  examining;  for  they  all  help 
us  to  fix  more  exactly  the  text  of  the  original  T.  Three  of  them  seem 
to  be  related  by  a  remarkable  characteristic  to  T.  These  are : 

(Brit.  Mus.)  MS.  Harl.  6041  [H2]  (see  Skeat's  A-text,  E.E.T.S. 
pp.  xx,  xxi). 

(Bodleian)  MS.  Digby  145  [Dig]  (see  Skeat's  A-text,  p.  xxiv). 

The  Duke  of  Westminster's  MS.  [W]  (see  Skeat's  Parallel  Extracts, 
p.  25). 

Now  these  MSS.,  TH2DigW,  instead  of  ending,  as  many  other  MSS. 
do,  with  Passus  xi,  continue  from  that  point  with  the  C-text.  This 
joining  on  of  C  to  A  might  of  course  have  been  done  independently,  but 
in  one  case  at  least  it  is  certain,  and  in  the  others  it  seems  most  likely, 
that  this  common  characteristic  is  due  to  the  MSS.  having  been  copied 
ultimately  from  one  MS.  '  t,'  which  had  had  the  C-text  appended  to  it 
in  this  way.  When  '  t '  is  spoken  of  as  a  combination  of  A  and  C,  it  does 
not  mean  that  the  scribe  has  attempted  to  amalgamate  a  C  and  an  A 
text  by  splicing  the  two  together  throughout :  he  has  merely  added  to 
a  pure  A-text  the  later  passus  of  the  C-text.  Such  '  combined  texts ' 
must  then  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  'combined  texts'  with 
which  we  shall  have  to  deal  later:  texts  produced  apparently  by  a  scribe 
who  had  before  him  two  MSS.  and  systematically  contaminated  both. 

That  H2  is  closely  allied  to  T,  does  not  need  demonstration.  Skeat 
says  '  After  collating  it  closely  with  the  text  from  the  beginning  down 
to  1.  146  of  Passus  II  I  ceased  doing  so ;  finding  that  it  is,  practically, 
little  else  than  an  inferior  duplicate  of  T,  and  may  be  neglected  without 
much  loss.'  And,  indeed,  for  fifty  or  a  hundred  lines  together  H2  some- 
times reads  as  if  it  were  a  mere  transcript  of  T.  Yet  it  is  not,  for,  of 
126  blunders  made  by  T  in  those  passages  common  to  T  and  H2 — for 
H2  is  defective — nineteen  are  not  shared  by  H2.  And  even  when  H2 
blunders  together  with  T,  it  is  sometimes  with  a  difference  which  helps 
us  to  see  what  the  reading  of  T's  original  was,  and  why  T  went  wrong. 

that  his  examination  of  the  MSS.  was  quite  perfunctory.  Whatever,  therefore,  may  be  the 
value  of  his  work  in  other  directions,  it  is  not  only  useless  but  misleading  with  reference 
to  the  relationship  of  the  A-MSS.  Dr  Kron  has  only  restated  dogmatically  Skeat's 
tentative  results.  He  has  added  a  large  number  of  serious  errors;  as  when  (p.  23)  he 
quotes  eleven  instances  between  Pass,  i,  34  and  i,  90  in  which  he  asserts  that  U  agrees 
with  VH  as  against  T  and  T's  cognates.  Such  an  agreement  would  be  most  abnormal. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  a  leaf  is  here  missing  from  U.  U  consequently  does  not  appear  in 
Skeat's  footnotes  as  differing  from  VH,  and  Dr  Kron,  overlooking  Skeat's  repeated  entry 
as  to  U's  deficiency,  has  assumed  that  U  agrees  with  VH. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  375 

On  the  other  hand,  H2  has  a  large  number  of  mistakes  peculiar  to  itself. 
Its  chief  value  is  that  it  enables  us  to  eliminate  the  worst  blunders  of 
the  last  scribe  of  T,  and  to  restore  to  some  extent  the  text  of  his 
original. 

From  another  point  of  view  H.2  is  interesting.  It  has  had  corrections 
written  in  by  a  later  hand.  These  corrections  seem  to  have  been  made 
on  no  very  clearly  intelligible  principle.  Three  or  four  of  them,  how- 
ever, could  only  have  been  made  by  a  man  who  was  familiar  with  the 
earlier  passus  of  the  poem  in  the  B  or  C  version.  Had  H2  been  copied 
again,  we  should  have  had  in  the  copy  a  characteristic  A-text  of  the 
T-type  with  a  few  puzzling  and  sporadic  B-readings. 

Much  more  puzzling  is  the  problem  presented  by  the  Digby  MS. 
(Dig).  This  MS.  must  have  been  copied  from  two  originals :  the  one 
an  A-MS,  with  or  without  the  C  continuation ;  the  other  a  C-MS.  The 
scribe  began  with  an  attempt  to  combine  the  two  systematically.  The 
first  five  lines  have  the  typical  C  peculiarities ;  then  follow  eight  lines 
as  they  occur  in  the  A  and  B  texts,  these  lines  being  for  the  most  part 
wanting  in  the  C-text;  then  four  C  lines;  then  two  lines  as  in  A;  a  line 
and  a  half  as  in  C;  then  A  again.  After  two  hundred  lines  or  so  of  this 
laborious  contamination,  the  scribe  grew  tired,  and  threw  down  his  pen. 
When  the  copying  is  resumed,  in  a  slightly  altered  hand,  the  A  version 
is  followed  fairly  consistently1,  and  only  rarely  contaminated2.  W 
likewise  has  been  contaminated  by  interpolations  from  a  B  type,  and 
apparently  also  from  a  C  type.  It  is  unnecessary  to  enumerate  these 
interpolations,  as  the  most  important  instances  in  the  earlier  passus  will 
be  found  in  Skeat's  Parallel  Passages3. 

T,  then,  is  not  very  efficiently  backed  up  by  the  MSS.  most  closely 
related  to  it.  H2  is  so  close  as  to  afford  comparatively  little  check ;  and 
the  fact  that  Dig  and  W  have  been  thus  contaminated  greatly  invali- 
dates their  evidence.  In  many  places  their  reading  will  not  be  a 

1  E.g.  in  the  following  passages,  where  B  makes  additions,  alterations  or  omissions, 
the  Digby  scribe  adheres  to  A.     A  i,  1,  4,  31  (where  however  one  line  of  the  B-C  addition 
has  been  afterwards  added  between  the  lines),  110  etc.,  119  etc.,  129  etc.,  136  etc.,  174; 
n,  11  etc.,  17,  19  etc.,  33,  40  etc.,  64  etc.,  84,  178—9;  m,  90,  173,  228  etc.,  249,  282  etc.; 
iv,  18,  116,  133  etc.,  138,  141  etc.,  146  etc.;  v,  10,  28 ;  vn,  10  etc.,  38  etc.,  45  etc.,  66  etc., 
110,  134  etc.,  166  etc.,  180  etc.,  212  etc.,  301  etc.,  311  etc.;  vm,  8,  13  etc.,  39  etc.,  43  etc., 
49  etc.,  58,  72  etc.,  99  etc.,  105,  122. 

2  E.g.  v,  42.     There    is   some   contamination  also   among  the   Seven    Deadly   Sins. 
Glutton  makes  his  confession  according  to  the  A  version  :  he  is  then  made  to  fall  into 
a  swoon  from  which  he  is  aroused  by  vigilate  the  veyle — this  passage  being  borrowed 
from  the  subsequent  confession  of  Sloth.     On  recovering  he  makes  a  second  confession 
according  to  the  B-text.     The  B-additions  to  Sloth  are  also  given.     Cf.  also  vi,  82  etc. ; 
96  etc. 

3  pp.  25,  26. 


376  The  Text  of  ' Piers  Plowman' 

genuine  A-reading  at  all,  but  a  reading  reflected  back  from  the 
B-C-recensions.  Except  in  those  passages  where  the  B-text  has 
departed  entirely  from  the  A-text,  we  shall  not  then  be  able  to  use 
the  evidence  of  Dig  and  W;  or  at  any  rate  we  shall  have  to  use  it 
only  with  the  utmost  caution. 

Much  more  helpful  is  the  support  afforded  to  U  by  its  nearest 
cognates.  These  are: 

(Bodleian)  MS.  Rawlinson  Poet.  137  (R),  see  Skeat's  A-text  142* ; 
Trinity  College,  Dublin  D.  4.  12  (E),  see  Skeat's  B-text,  p.  vi,  foot- 
note. 

Both  these  were  discovered  during  the  publication  of  Prof.  Skeat's 
monumental  edition  in  the  E.E.T.S.,  but  too  late  to  be  used  in  the 
formation  of  the  A-text,  except  quite  at  the  end.  Consequently  no 
collations  of  these  MSS.  have  been  published.  Yet  they  are  of  great 
importance :  R  is  in  some  respects  equal,  in  one  at  least  superior  to  U. 
RUE  are  descended  from  one  original.  In  this  original  apparently  two 
leaves  had  got  misplaced;  for  alike  in  R,  U  and  E  we  find  11.  71 — 213 
or  216  of  Passus  vn  inserted  after  1.  182  of  Passus  I1.  E,  apparently, 
was  not  copied  directly  from  this  source.  There  are  signs  that  the  most 
immediate  original  of  E  was  a  transcript  which  had  been  corrected  and 
interpolated  from  a  copy  of  the  B-text.  This  would  account  for  the 
B-lines  which  occur  sporadically  in  E.  We  shall  therefore  have  to  be 
careful  not  to  take  the  evidence  of  E  in  any  case  where  the  true  reading 
could  have  been  ascertained  from  a  B-text,  unless  that  reading  is  sup- 
ported also  by  E's  uncontaminated  fellows.  E,  however,  still  has  value, 
as  it  will  enable  us  to  decide  between  its  nearest  relatives  U  and  R 
when  the}7  differ. 

The  existence  of  these  MSS.,  Digby,  Dublin,  Westminster  (and,  we 
may  add,  Harleian  3954),  all  showing  a  greater  or  less  amount  of  features 
characteristic  of  the  B  or  C  versions,  raises  a  question  of  great  im- 
portance as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  author,  or  authors,  issued  his, 
or  their  work,  a  question,  too,  which  must  be  settled  before  we  can  get 
any  further  in  our  study  of  MS.  relationships.  Did  the  author  issue 

1  Another  peculiarity  of  this  group  is  the  protest  against  Love-Days: 

Vicars  on  fele  halue  •  fonden  hem  to  done 

Leders  J?ei  be  of  louedays  •  and  with  \>e  lawe  medle. 

The  lines  are  found,  with  two  others,  in  E.  They  are  also  found  in  K,  but  a  blank  space 
is  left  where  the  word  Vicars  should  occur.  By  reason  probably  of  this  undecipherable 
word,  the  whole  passage  is  omitted  in  U. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  377 

from  time  to  time  additions  to  his  work,  so  as  to  give  rise  to  series  of 
transitional  texts,  between  A  and  B  ?  This  last  explanation  was  that 
adopted  by  Prof.  Skeat,  and  it  has  been  lately  fully  and  persuasively 
stated  by  M.  Jusserand.  Jusserand  supposes  that  Langland,  like 
Montaigne,  kept  his  work  by  him  and  was  ever  making  additions  in 
the  margin,  or  on  slips  of  parchment :  '  Tentative  additions,  written  by 
the  author  on  the  margin  or  on  scraps,  to  be  later  definitely  admitted 
or  not  into  the  text,  were  inserted  haphazard  anywhere  by  some 
copyists,  and  let  alone  by  others1.  In  his  next  revision  the  poet  never 
failed  to  remove  a  number  of  errors  left  in  the  previous  text,  always, 
however,  forgetting  a  few.  As  shown  by  the  condition  of  MSS.,  the 
poet  let  copyists  transcribe  his  work  at  various  moments,  when  it  was 
in  the  making  (it  was  indeed  ever  in  the  making)  and  was  in  .a  far 
from  complete  and  perfect  state ;  sometimes  when  part  or  the  whole  of 
an  episode  was  lacking,  or  when  it  ended  with  a  canto  or  passus  merely 
sketched  and  left  unfinished.  The  scribes  who  copied  the  MS.  Harl. 
875  and  the  Lincoln's  Inn  MS.  had  apparently  before  them  an  original 
of  version  A,  containing  only  the  first  eight  passus,  that  is,  the  episodes 
of  Meed  and  Piers.' 

Now  it  may  be  that,  when  the  evidence  of  the  MSS.  has  been  finally 
sifted,  there  will  be  left  over  certain  passages  supporting  this  theory. 
But  certainly  the  bulk  of  the  phenomena  which  might  seem  at  first 
sight  to  support  it,  on  further  examination  do  not  do  so.  Thus,  the 
fact  that  Harleian  875  and  the  Lincoln's  Inn  MS.  go  no  further  than 
Passus  vin,  is  a  sheer  accident.  Both  MSS.  have  been  mutilated  ;  and 
whether  in  each  case  a  few  lines  or  three  passus  have  been  torn  away 
from  the  end,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  MS.  itself  to  show.  But 
Harleian  875  is  copied,  beyond  doubt,  from  the  same  original  as 
Vernon ;  and  Vernon  goes  to  Passus  xi.  There  is  no  evidence  what- 
ever, then,  that  the  Lincoln's  Inn  MS.  was  copied  from  an  original 
version  of  A  containing  only  the  first  eight  passus;  whilst  there  is 
strong  evidence  that  Harleian  875  was  copied  from  an  original  con- 
taining at  least  some  eleven  passus. 

Again,  with   regard   to   the   lines   found   in    Harleian   875   alone, 
'  M.  Jusserand's  theory  apparently  is  that  they  were  added  as  an  after- 
thought by  the  writer,  and  therefore  are  wanting  in  other  A-texts ; 
whilst  they  were  subsequently  either  lost  or  cancelled,  and  are  therefore 

1  '  Of  this  sort  are,  to  all  appearances,  the  additional  lines  in  the  MS.  Harl.  875  of  A, 
not  to  be  found  elsewhere,  especially  the  two  passages  giving,  as  in  a  parenthesis,  some 
supplementary  touches,  on  Fals  and  on  Favel,  one  of  four  and  the  other  of  three  lines.'— 
(Jusseraud.) 


378  The  Text  of '.Piers  Plowmqn' 

wanting  in  the  B  and  C  texts.  And  this  would  be  a  very  possible 
theory,  if  the  lines  were  found  both  in  Vernon  and  Harleian  875.  But 
they  are  found  in  Harleian  875  alone.  If  the  lines  are  genuine,  not 
the  additions  of  H,  but  copied  from  his  original,  how  comes  it  that  they 
are  not  to  be  found  in  Vernon,  copied  from  the  same  original  ? 

Precisely  the  same  line  of  argument  leads  us  to  suppose  that  the 
B-lines  in  E  cannot  be  derived  from  the  archetype  of  E,  but  are  the 
independent  additions  of  a  scribe,  made  from  his  knowledge  of  a  B  or 
C  text.  For,  that  E  is  ultimately  a  copy  of  the  same  original  as  U 
and  R,  is  certain.  Innumerable  peculiarities,  and  -above  all  the  odd 
transposition  of  some  of  the  matter,  prove  this.  Yet  these  B-lines  do 
not  occur  in  RU. 

In  like  manner,  the  peculiarities  of  the  Digby  MS.  cannot  be 
explained  as  due  to  that  MS.  being  copied  from  a  first  draft  of  the 
B-text,  in  which  only  a  few  of  the  B-additions,  such  as  the  rat-fable,  as 
yet  appear.  On  the  contrary,  minute  examination  shows  that  the  MS. 
is  compounded  from  at  least  two  others;  and  we  can  almost  see  the 
scribe  at  work,  writing  now  a  few  lines  from  his  A-text  original,  now 
a  few  from  his  C-text. 

We  are  compelled  therefore,  however  reluctantly,  to  believe  that 
this  B-element  in  A-MSS.  is  due  to  the  '  sophistication '  of  later  scribes, 
and  accordingly  to  doubt  the  evidence  of  these  '  sophisticated '  MSS. 

We  have  found  the  MSS.  so  far  considered,  to  fall  into  two  great 
classes;  one  represented  by  V  and  H,  derived  from  an  original  p. 
This  p  we  cannot  reconstruct  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  For  where 
V  and  H  differ,  and  they  differ  frequently,  it  will  be  very  difficult  to 
decide  between  them.  In  many  cases,  it  is  true,  the  reading  of  V,  and 
still  more  often  that  of  H,  is  obviously  unmetrical  or  nonsensical.  But 
often  the  differences  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  make  it  difficult  to 
choose.  Since  we  do  not  yet  know  exactly  what  laws  of  alliteration  the 
author  of  the  A-text  observed,  we  shall  often  hesitate,  even  when  one 
reading  seems  metrically  superior.  We  shall  be  driven  in  reconstructing 
our  theoretical  p,  to  the  rather  desperate  course  of  following  V,  which 
is  on  the  whole  a  much  surer  guide  than  H,  except  in  those  cases  where 
H  offers  a  clearly  better  reading.  We  cannot  by  this  means  hope  to 
reconstruct  exactly  the  original  p ;  but  we  get  something  nearer  than 
we  should  if  we  adopted  either  of  the  other  courses  open  to  us  (1)  that 
of  following  H,  except  where  V  is  clearly  better,  or  (2)  tossing  a  penny 
in  all  doubtful  cases. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.     H.    G.    GRATTAN  379 

Our  reconstructed  f  is  then,  after  all,  a  somewhat  doubtful  quantity. 

Our  second  group  of  MSS.  consists  of  TH2WDigRUE,  and  we  have 
seen  that  these  subdivide  into  two  sub-groups,  distinguished  each  by 
a  remarkable  characteristic:  TH2WDig  (the  T  group)  and  URE  (the 
U  group).  Although,  as  we  have  seen,  the  MS.  T  is  much  better  than 
MS.  U,  there  is  nevertheless  not  much  to  choose  between  these  two 
sub-groups.  For  the  MSS.  we  have  classed  with  T  do  not  help  us 
much :  H2  is  too  close  to  T  to  be  of  more  than  secondary  value  as 
a  check ;  W  and  Dig  are  suspect  by  reason  of  B-contamination.  Indeed, 
owing  to  this  cross  relationship,  it  becomes  exceedingly  difficult  to  make 
out  what  the  real  affinities  of  W  and  Dig  are.  Much  more  efficient  is 
the  checking  and  support  which  U  derives  from  R  and  E ;  for  E  is  not 
affected  by  B-influence  to  the  same  extent  as  are  Dig  and  W. 

The  T  group  and  the  U  group  fortunately  do  not  differ  very  much : 
when  they  do  they  are  of  so  nearly  equal  value  that  in  many  cases  there 
is  little  to  choose.  Here  we  want  an  arbitrator ;  unless  in  all  readings 
where  there  is  no  clear  superiority,  we  are  to  be  again  at  the  mercy  of 
chance. 

Here  we  may  perhaps  be  helped  by  the  partially  collated  D — Douce 
323  in  the  Bodleian.  '  This  MS.,'  says  Skeat,  '  follows  T  rather  closely, 
but  is  full  of  gross  blunders.  On  this  account,  after  collating  with 
Passus  I — iv  I  desisted,  finding  that  it  only  tended  to  choke  the 
footnotes  with  inferior  readings.' 

Yet  Douce  might  repay  careful  collation  throughout.  It  belongs 
clearly,  like  H2R  and  E,  to  the  TU  group ;  yet  it  seems,  within  that 
group,  not  to  fall  very  clearly  either  into  the  TH2  section  or  into  the 
RUE  section,  though  in  many  cases  it  goes  with  TH2  against  RUE. 
Indeed,  with  all  its  many  and  serious  corruptions,  Douce  has  some- 
times preserved  the  right  reading  where  both  T  and  U  are  obviously 
wrong.  Of  course  Douce  is  constantly  straying  independently.  But 
with  such  good  guides  as  TRU,  we  shall  hardly  be  misled  into  any  of 
D's  corruptions;  whilst  D  will  help  us  considerably  in  reconstructing 
the  common  original.  Here  and  there,  though  rarely,  D  will  enable  us 
to  get  a  better  reading  than  either  T  or  RU  supply;  but  D's  chief 
function  will  be  to  decide  the  balance  between  the  readings  of  T  and 
of  RU,  where  these 'differ  without  a  clear  advantage  on  either  side. 

We  have  seen  that  the  TU  tradition  is  apparently  more  correct 
than  the  VH  tradition,  in  so  far  as  it  gives  us  fewer  common  blunders. 
We  are  therefore  fortunate  in  having  eight  MSS.  of  this  class 
THaDigWRUED  to  help  us  to  establish  the  text  of  the  original 


380  The  Text  of  'Piers  Plowman ' 

MS.  of  this  type,  and  to  reduce  the  number  of  common  blunders  to 
a  somewhat  smaller  figure.  At  the  same  time  the  more  uncertain  VH 
tradition  cannot  be  neglected,  since,  as  we  have  seen,  it  preserves  what 
appears  to  be  the  right  reading  in  some  twenty-two  instances  where 
the  T  group  and  the  RU  group  both  seem  to  be  wrong,  and  where,  in 
all  but  two  cases,  D  is  also  wrong. 

And  we  may  be  certain  that  for  one  instance  where  the  correctness 
of  VH  can  be  proved,  there  are  many  where  VH  are  right  though  we 
cannot  prove  it ;  for  only  in  a  minority  of  the  cases  in  which  the  two 
traditions  vary,  can  we  definitely  declare  either  tradition  right  in  virtue 
of  intrinsic  superiority  alone. 

What  we  therefore  need  is  a  MS.  independent  alike  of  the  VH  and 
of  the  TU  group.  Such  a  MS.  would  not  be  useless,  even  were  it  very 
corrupt ;  for,  as  Dr  Johnson  charitably  observed,  even  the  greatest  liar 
may  speak  more  truth  in  his  lifetime  than  untruth.  The  important 
thing  is  that  we  should  be  certain  of  this  MS.  being  independent  of 
either  family. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  Lincoln's  Inn  MS.  [L],  which  is  thus 
described  by  Skeat :  '  On  comparing  a  transcript  of  a  considerable 
number  of  lines  kindly  made  for  me  by  Dr  Furnivall,  I  found  that  the 
text  had  been  much  corrupted  by  the  scribe,  and  that  to  collate  it 
would  only  fill  the  footnotes  with  false  readings,  except  in  places  where 
the  text  is  sufficiently  ascertained  without  it.  The  corruptions  are  due 

to  an  inordinate  love  of  alliteration Careful  examination  of  the  MS. 

shows,  in  fact,  that  it  is  best  dismissed.'  Indeed  the  corruptions  of 
L  are  so  numerous  and  so  violent  that  to  use  it  as  the  basis  of  a  text 
would  be  absurd.  Yet  it  may  be  of  value  in  helping  us  to  decide 
between  the  conflicting  readings  of  our  two  good  traditions  VH  and 
TU,  especially  as  the  corruptions  of  L  are,  as  Skeat  states,  due  to  an 
excessive  love  of  alliteration,  whilst  those  of  VH  and  TU  often  involve 
a  disregard  of  it.  It  is  exceedingly  unlikely  that  VH  and  L,  or  TU  and 
L,  will  often  agree  in  making  the  same  change,  unless  there  is  a  rela- 
tionship between  them.  That  L  is  independent  of  both  the  VH  and 
the  TU  group  seems  however  clear.  We  have  seen  that  V  and  H  are 
characterized  by  63  common  blunders,  in  places  where  T  or  U  or  both 
give  the  correct  reading.  In  53  cases  L  gives  the  right  reading  in 
agreement  with  T  or  U :  in  seven  L  is  corrupt  or  illegible,  differing 
alike  from  VH  and  from  TU;  though  indeed,  in  many  cases  the  cor- 
ruption is  evidently  a  miswriting  of  the  reading  of  TU.  In  three 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  381 

instances  only  does  L  go  wrong  with  VH,  and  these  three  are  of  such 
a  character  that  the  resemblance  may  well  be  accidental.  That  L 
does  not  belong  to  the  VH  group  seems  then  fairly  clear.  T  and  U, 
we  have  seen,  agree  in  offering  a  reading  inferior  to  that  of  V  in 
twenty-two  instances :  (if  we  include  D,  TUD  offer  an  inferior  reading 
in  only  twenty  instances).  Of  the  twenty-two  cases  where  we  have 
judged  TU  inferior  to  VH,  L  agrees  with  VH  in  fifteen,  is  wanting 
in  one,  and  agrees  with  TU  in  six.  Six  cases  of  common  blundering 
would  be  enough  to  prove  some  connection,  though  slight,  between  TU 
and  L.  But  on  scrutinizing  these  six  instances  we  find  that  in  each 
case  the  inferiority  of  the  TUL  reading  consists  only  in  the  line  not 
running  or  alliterating  as  well  as  that  offered  by  VH.  In  no  case, 
however,  is  the  TUL  reading  an  impossible  one ;  and  in  each  case  the 
TUL  reading  is  backed  up  by  all  the  extant  MSS.,  except  VH.  In  two 
cases  even  H  deserts  V,  and  goes  with  TUL  and  the  rest.  There  seems 
then  a  strong  presumption  that  in  these  six  cases  TU  and  L  do,  after 
all,  give  the  original  reading,  and  that  the  variant  given,  sometimes  by 
V  alone,  sometimes  by  V  and  H,  is  only  an  example  of  the  desire  so 
frequently  shown  by  scribes,  of  improving  the  alliteration. 

The  agreement  in  these  six  cases  of  TU  and  L  does  not  therefore 
prove  any  connection  between  L  and  the  TU  group ;  and  we  have  seen 
that  there  is  no  connection  between  L  and  the  VH  group. 

Further,  there  are  passages  where  a  very  early  corruption  has  crept 
in,  which  is  common  to  both  the  VH  group  and  the  TU  group.  Here 
L  sometimes  shows  a  reading  superior  to  that  of  either  group. 

An  example  is  the  line  referred  to  above,  p.  368 : 

For  Mede  is  moylere  of  Ameudes  engendred. 

We  saw  that  in  TU  and  their  fellows,  Amendes  had  been  corrupted  to 
a  senseless  '  frendis.'  In  VH  the  passage  had  been  altered,  evidently 
because  the  scribe  had  in  his  original  some  reading  which  he  could 
not  understand.  L  however  retains  the  right  reading  '  of  Mendes 
engendred.' 

Again,  in  iv,  141,  where  both  the  VH  and  the  TU  group  go  wrong 
over  the  name  of  Warren  Wisdom,  L  has  it  correctly : 

Waryn  Wisdom  f>o  ny  Witty  his  fere1. 

1  In  n,  87  I  and  Dig  also  have  the  right  reading,  whilst  W  and  As  are  wanting.  In 
iv,  141,  I,  Dig  and  W  also  have  the  right  reading.  But,  almost  certainly  in  the  case  of 
Dig  and  W,  and  possibly  in  the  case  of  I,  this  is  a  correction  due  to  the  influence  of  the 
B-text. 


382  The  Text  of  ' Piers  Plowman  ' 

L  then  is  a  garbled  copy  of  a  good  MS.,  independent  of  both  the 
other  groups.  It  is  a  pity  that  this  type  of  MS.  should  be  represented 
only  by  this  garbled  copy,  just  as  it  would  have  been  a  pity  had  it  been 
represented  only  by  a  MS.  of  which  the  rats  had  gnawed  every  page. 
But  neither  of  these  mishaps  would  entirely  vitiate  the  MS.  For  we 
have  such  good  evidence  from  VHTU,  that  we  can  put  our  fingers  with 
certainty  upon  the  lines  of  L  which  are  garbled.  Of  other  passages  we 
can  say  with  equal  certainty  '  Here  the  scribe  is  following  his  copy 
accurately:  and  the  fact  that  he  agrees  with  TU  against  VH  (or  the 
contrary)  is  a  strong  argument  that  it  is  VH  and  not  TU  which  has 
here  wandered  away  from  the  original.'  The  very  ignorance  of  the 
scribe  who  corrupted  the  L  version,  is,  in  fact,  in  his  favour.  Had 
he  been  a  man  who  knew  the  poem  in  some  other  version,  and  who 
corrected  his  copy  from  his  knowledge  of  that  version,  he  would  have 
produced  a  text  much  more  accurate  than  that  now  preserved  at 
Lincoln's  Inn;  but  one  for  our  purpose  comparatively  worthless.  On 
the  contrary,  however,  L's  tradition  seems  to  be  a  peculiarly  uncon- 
taminated  one ;  and  his  corruptions  are  his  own.  Hence  his  worth ; 
much  as  in  certain  cases  an  ignorant  and  illiterate  witness  may  give 
evidence,  the  value  of  which  is  enhanced  by  his  ignorance1. 

In  the  Ingilby  MS.  [I]  (see  Skeat,  Parallel  Extracts,  28—31)  we 
have  another  MS.  which  is  related  only  distantly  to  either  the  VH  or 
the  TU  groups :  of  the  two  it  stands  nearer  to  TU.  I's  independence 
becomes  manifest  if  we  compare  its  behaviour  in  the  places  where  V 
and  H,  or  T  and  U,  go  wrong  together. 

Of  the  sixty-three  places  where  V  and  H  agree  in  what  seemed  to 
be  a  departure  from  the  true  reading  as  preserved  in  T  or  U,  I  agrees 
with  T  or  U  in  fifty.  In  six  cases  I  is  corrupt  or  missing.  In  seven, 
however,  I  agrees  with  VH.  But,  on  scrutinizing  these  seven,  we  find 
that  four  of  them  are  cases  where,  on  weighing  all  the  MS.  evidence,  it 
is  quite  possible  that  the  agreement  of  VH  and  I  is  due,  after  all,  to 
their  reading  being  the  original  one;  and  that  the  better  alliteration 
given,  for  example,  by  U,  is  due  to  a  scribe's  attempt  at  improving  his 
original.  In  two  other  cases  the  reading  of  VH  and  I,  though  indis- 

1  The  corruptions  of  the  garbler  are  in  themselves  interesting.  He  had  a  good 
alliterative  vocabulary,  and  rejoiced  in  good  old  words  like  weoued,  altar.  He  probably 
wrote  in  the  late  14th  or  very  early  15th  century :  for  he  has  altered  '  That  heore  Parisch 
ha)>  ben  pore  sej>j>e  the  Pestilence  tyme '  P.  81,  to  '  j>at  sen  J?e  furste  pestilence  heore 
parysch  weore '  [pore  illegible].  This  alteration  would  be  natural  if  made  by  a  con- 
temporary not  long  after  the  last  pestilence.  It  would  hardly  have  been  made  late  in  the 
15th  century,  when  the  distinction  between  the  different  pestilences  must  have  been  largely 
obliterated  in  popular  memory. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  383 

putably  a  departure  from  the  original  text,  might  well  have  been  made 
independently.  Only  in  one  instance  out  of  the  sixty-three  does  I 
accompany  VH  in  what  is  pretty  clearly  an  error,  and  yet  one  not  very 
likely  to  have  been  made  independently.  That  there  should  be  only 
one  such  instance  in  eight  passus,  is  strong  evidence  that  I  belongs  to  a 
type  quite  distinct  from  the  VH  group. 

As  to  any  possible  relation  between  I  and  the  TU  group :  we  have 
seen  that  of  the  twenty-two  passages  where  T  and  U  seem  to  go  astray 
together,  six  are  possibly  not  errors  after  all.  Of  these  twenty-two 
passages,  I  goes  with  TU  in  eleven;  including  the  six  doubtful  cases, 
which  ought  to  be  dismissed  as  inconclusive.  The  five  remaining  cases 
are  not  very  conclusive  either ;  but  they  serve  to  suggest  the  possibility 
of  some  slight  connection  between  I  and  the  TU  group. 

The  Ingilby  MS.  then,  is  not  connected  with  the  VH  group :  it  may 
be  very  slightly  connected  with  the  TU  group.  It  is  a  much  less  corrupt 
MS.  than  is  the  one  at  Lincoln's  Inn ;  but  for  our  purpose  it  is  much 
less  useful.  For  there  are  some  signs  that  it  has  passed  through  the 
hands  of  a  scribe  or  of  a  corrector  who  knew  the  text  in  the  C- version  : 
hence,  when  I  corrects  VH  or  TU,  we  cannot  be  certain,  without  careful 
scrutiny,  that  we  have  a  genuine  unpolluted  tradition.  But  the  traces 
of  B  or  C  influence  upon  I  are,  after  all,  very  small ;  so  that  the 
evidence  of  I  is  still  of  great  value,  though  we  must  receive  it  with 
caution. 

Two  other  MS.  need  mention.  Ashmole  1468  [As]  combines  all 
possible  faults.  It  is  imperfect,  corrupt,  and  contaminated  by  B  or 
C-influence.  Harleian  3954  [H3]  is,  up  to  Passus  v,  not  an  A  MS.  at 
all,  but  a  B-type.  From  Passus  v  onwards  it  is  a  contaminated  A-MS. 
As  however  most  of  our  examples  have  been  drawn  from  the  earlier 
passus,  it  seemed  best  not  to  quote  H3. 

The  Ilchester  MS.,  though  mainly  a  C-text,  contains  a  passage 
derived  from  an  A-MS.,  apparently  of  the  TU  type. 

Many  of  the  above  suggestions  are  put  forth  only  tentatively;  for 
we  have  not  yet  had  time  to  sift  thoroughly  our  transcripts  and  colla- 
tions. The  following  statements,  however,  are  advanced  with  some 
confidence : 

1.  That  a  nearer  approximation  to  the  original  A- text  can  be  drawn 
from  the  MSS.  of  the  TU  group  than  from  the  Vernon  MS. 

2.  That  any  text  which  is  to  reproduce  closely  the  original  poem, 
must  be  founded  both  upon  the  TU  group  and  also,  although  to  a  less 


384  The  Text  of  ' Piers  Plowman' 

degree,  upon  the  VH  group;  the  MSS.  which  belong  to  neither  tradition 
must  be  used  to  turn  the  scale  in  doubtful  cases ;  whilst  the  danger  of 
introducing  readings  which  may  themselves  be  the  result  of  correction 
from  a  B-  or  C-text,  must  be  borne  in  mind. 

3.  That  a  text  so  formed  will  be  found  to  approximate  much  more 
closely  to  the  received  B-text  than  the  received  A-text  does. 

4.  That   only  when   we   know   what   is   the  'diction,  metre   and 
sentence  structure '  of  the  original  A-text,  can  we  argue  with  certainty 
whether  these  are,  or  are  not,  materially  different  from  those  of  the 
B-additions,  or  decide  whether  B's  treatment  of  the  A-text  is  really 
inconsistent  with  unity  of  authorship. 

It  is  impossible  to  do  any  work  at  the  text  of  Piers  Plowman 
without  troubling  a  large  number  of  persons :  and  thanks  are  more 
particularly  due  to  Sir  Henry  Ingilby  for  the  long  loan  of  his  MS. :  to 
Professor  R.  A.  Williams  for  a  preliminary  inspection  of  the  Dublin  MS., 
and  to  the  authorities  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  for  a  three  months 
loan  of  that  MS. :  to  the  Earl  of  Ilchester  for  kindly  placing  his  MS.  at 
the  British  Museum :  to  the  Duke  of  Westminster  for  allowing  us  to 
consult  his  MS.  at  Eaton  Hall :  and  to  the  librarians,  of  the  British 
Museum,  of  the  Bodleian,  of  Trinity  College  Cambridge,  and  of  Lincoln's 
Inn  for  their  unfailing  courtesy  and  consideration.  It  goes  without 
saying  that  every  student  of  Piers  Plowman  is  under  heavy  obligations 
to  Prof.  Skeat,  upon  whose  work  all  later  research  must  be  based :  we 
have  also  to  thank  him  personally  for  the  interest  he  has  taken  in  our 
work. 

The  writers  hope,  later  in  the  year,  to  print  either  MS.  T  or  R,  with 
collations  of  all  the  other  MSS.  Meantime,  in  illustration  of  what  has 
been  said  above,  Passus  v,  43 — 106  is  given  from  T,  with  collations  from 
R(awlinson),  U(niv.  Coll.,  Oxford),  E  (Trin.  Coll,  Dub.),  H2  (Harl.  6041), 
D(ouce),  Dg  (Digby),  W  (The  Duke  of  Westminster's  MS.),  Lincoln's 
Inn  MS.),  I  (Sir  Henry  Ingilby's  MS.),  A(shmole),  V(ernon),  H(arl.  875). 
As  the  sole  object  is  to  illustrate  the  relationship  of  the  MSS,  mere 
orthographic  variations  are  omitted. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  385 

PIERS   PLOWMAN. 
Passus  v,  43—106. 

panne  repentaunce  reherside  his  teme 

And  made  wil  to  wepe  watir  wij?  his  ei3en 
45  Pernel  proud  herte  plat  hire  to  J?e  er]?e 

And  lay  longe  er  heo  lokide  vp  &  lord  mercy  criede 

And  behi3te  to  hym  J?at  vs  alle  made 

Heo  shulde  vnsewe  hire  serke  &  sette  ]>ere  an  heire 

For  to  affaiten  hire  flessh  J?at  fers  was  to  synne 
50  Shal  neuere  hei}  herte  me  hente  but  holde  me  lowe 

And  suffre  to  be  misseid  &  so  dide  I  neuere 

But  now  wile  I  meke  me  &  mercy  beseke 

Of  alle  }>at  I  haue  had  enuye  in  myn  herte 

Lecchowr  seide  alias  &  to  oure  lady  criede 
55  To  make  mercy  for  his  mysdede  betwyn  god  &  hym 
57  With  ]>at  he  ]?e  satirday  seue  }er  J>er  aftir 

Shulde  drinke  but  wi)?  ]?e  doke  &  dyne  but  ones 

Enuye  wi]?  heuy  herte  askide  aftir  shrift 

43.  Jpanne]  And  }?an  W ;  pan  ran  EDgLIAVH.  reherside}  &  rehersyd 
DgLIAVH ;  to  recherce  W.  his]  j?is  V.  44.  made]  gart  A  ;  omitted  D.  wil] 
wylkt'ara  H2 ;  William  VH.  to  wepe]  wepen  W.  wi)>]  of  E ;  riht  at  bothe  I ;  with 
bojje  AV.  ei^en]  eye  R  ;  here  a  hole  in  H.  45.  proudherte]  J?e  proud  A.  plat 

hire]  fel  plat  W ;  plat  doun  A.  \>e  er\>e]  grounde  AVH.  46.  vp]  om.  RU  DDgLI  A  VH. 
lord  mercy]  mercy  sho  E ;  lord  merci  heo  H2 ;  oure  lord  mercy  L ;  mercy  A ;  to  vr 
ladi  V.  criede]  gan  crie  A.  And  lay — criede]  She  sighed  soryfu  &  saide  lord 
mercy  W. 

47.  I  omits  this  line,  behi^te]  sho  hight  E ;  hight  W.  made]  maked  with  his 
myght  L.  48.  Heo]  Yat  sho  EA ;  he  L.  shulde]  wolde  LAVH.  serke]  schorte 

L;  shert  H;  smok  DgV.  \>ere]  yerin  EA;  on  added,  later  hand  H2.  49.  For 
to]  To  RU  WA.  affaiten]  afauteu  R ;  ffete  EVH ;  afeyntyn  A ;  dawntyn  I.  fers] 
fresch  RULH  ;  frele  AV.  50.  hei}]  liht  VH.  hente]  hende  U ;  hente  quo)?  heo  H ; 
haunte  D ;  hold  A.  hei$ — hente]  my  hert  be  so  heigh  W.  holde  me]  euer  holdyn  it  A. 
52.  But]  And  IV ;  omitted  H.  wil  I]  I  wil  RI ;  wil  omitted  A ;  I  con  wel  V.  me] 
myself  H.  53.  alle]  om.  L;  alle  ying  I.  haue]  om.  D.  enuye]  of  enuye  RA; 
pn'de  WI.  54.  Lecchour]  Lechery  DgW ;  f>e  lechoure  L ;  j?e  lechours  H.  seide] 
yo  seyd  I.  to]  on  RUEDDgWLI.  to — lady]  lord  mercy  H.  criede]  gradde  L ;  bad 
H.  55.  mercy]  amendes  U.  To — mercy]  om.  H.  for]  of  L.  misdede]  misdedis 
IH  ;  sowle  A.  him]  hys  soaulle  EDgL ;  hym  of  mysdede  A ;  hym  silue;i  H.  I  omits 
betwyn  hym  and  inserts  mene  after  mercy,  above  the  line.  In  W  the  line  reads :  To 
gete  mercy  of  god  in  helpe  of  his  soule.  V  expands  into  two  lines :  To  maken  him 
han  Merci  for  his  misdede;  Bitwene  god  almihti  and  his  pore  soule.  80"1-  i 

After  1.  55  H2  inserts  four  II. :  And  chastite  to  seke  as  a  chyld  clene,  The  lust 
of  his  likam  to  leten  for  euere,  And  fie  fro  felyschipe  there  foly  may  arise,  For 
that  makith  many  man  mysdo  ful  ofte.  57.  With]  and  A.  he]  he  schulde 

RUEDgWLIAVH.  \>e  satirday]  satenlay  W ;  satourdayes  RU ;  om.  I.  jer]  $ere 
sykerly  I.  \,er]  om.  REDAV.  Shulde]  om.  RUEDDgWLIAVH.  but]  om. 
EH2DgWA.  doke]  doge  L ;  goos  RU.  dyne]  eten  VH.  59.  heuy]  hije  H. 

M.  L.  E.  iv.  25 


386  The  Text  of 'Piers  Plowman' 

60  And  carfulliche  his  cope  begynnej?  he  to  shewe 

He  was  as  pale  as  a  palet  &  on  ]>e  palesie  he  semide 
He  was  clobid  in  a  caury  maury  I  can  it  nou}t  descryue 
A  kertil  &  a  courtepy  a  knyf  be  his  side 
Of  a  Freris  frokke  were  ]>e  fore  sleuys 

65  As  a  lek  J?at  hadde  leyn  longe  in  ]>e  sonne 
So  lokide  he  wi)>  lene  chekis  lourande  foule 
His  body  was  bolnid  for  wro)?  )>at  he  bot  his  lippe 
And  wrojjliche  he  wro]?  his  fest  to  wreke  hym  he  ]x)U3te 
WiJ>  werkis  &  wordis  whanne  he  sai}  his  tynie 

70  Venym  &  verious  or  vynegre  I  trowe 

Walewi]?  in  my  wombe  &  waxib  as  I  wene 
I  mi3te  not  many  day  do  as  a  man  mi3te 
Such  wynd  in  my  wombe  wexi)?  er  I  dyne 

60.  And]  om.  W.  carfullicke]  gretliche  V.  cope]  coupe  UED ;  culpe  Dg ; 
coulpe  W ;  compte  R  ;  counte  A  ;  gult  LI  ;  gultus  VH.  begynne\>  he]  he 
gynny|>  RU ;  biginnef>  DVH ;  begynnyth  for  I ;  he  couette*  E ;  com  for  A. 
61.  He  was]  om.  WVH.  as  pale]  pale  RDg;  om.  E.  a  palet]  a  pelet  R^DgLA; 
a  pelat  U ;  a  piller  E ;  erthe  I.  He — palet]  pe  pelowr  was  pelled  H.  and]  om. 
DLAVH.  on]  in  EDgWLIAVH.  \>e]  a  DgWV ;  om.  DI.  palesie]  perlesy  E.  on 
\>e  palesie]  paltyk  R ;  palatik  U.  semide]  semeth  L.  62.  was]  E  omits.  He  teas] 
om.  H ;  and  L.  a]  om.  H.  /  can]  I  coude  RUEDgWIAVH ;  coude  y  L.  it]  om.  EA ; 
hym  UVH.  it  nou^t]  not  it  D.  descryue]  discrie  RUELA  ;  deserue  Dg ;  deuise  W. 

63,  64.  Wanting  in  V.  63.  knyf]  kneuet  A.  64.  Of]  As  A.  freres] 
frere  DLL  frokke]  frog  RA  ;  frogge  U ;  freyke  I.  \>e]  hys  ELDgWAH.  fore]  forne 
Dgl ;  forme  UA ;  two  H.  65.  As — \>at]  Like  as  he  H.  \>at]  om.  W.  \>at — \>e] 
longe  leyen  in  the  hote  L.  66.  he]  E  omits,  lene]  his  lene  H.  lourande] 

lowrynge  RUDDgWLIAH  ;  lourede  he  V.  foule]  full  foull  EDg ;  ful  lowe  H. 
67.  bolnid]  boiled  VH.  His — bolnid]  Al  forbolne  W.  for]  with  DgA.  wro\>] 
angre  W.  ]>at  he  bot]  bote  he  on  A ;  he  bot  V ;  he  bot  bof>e  H.  lippe]  lippes 
EDgWLIAVH. 

68,  69.  One  line  in  A  :  He  lokyd  vndur  his  browis  as  a  bond  dogge.  And]  om. 
VH.  he]  om.  E.  wro\>]  wrong  REDgLVH  ;  wroj?  corr.  later  hand  to  wrong  W.  fest] 
handes  E.  hym]  hem  DgW.  he]  om.  D.  to — ^outfe]  he  f?ou3te  hiwi  awreke  V ;  he 
|>ou3te  hym  to  wreke  H.  69.  werkis  &  wordis]  werkes  and  with  wordes  R ; 

werk  or  wi{>  word  UE;  werkes  or  wordes  DL ;  werk  &  woord  W;  workea  or  with 
wordes  DgVH.  whanne]  than  H2.  sai$]  sey  RUDI ;  say  H2 ;  see3  Dg ;  8613  V ; 
sawe  ELH. 

After  1.  69  W  inserts  seven  B  lines  (87—93 ;  not  84 — 93  cf.  Skeat,  Par. 
Extracts,  p.  26).  70.  <fc]  or  RUEDAVH  ;  than  Dg ;  om.  I.  verious]  vergeous 
UD  ;  Vernish  DgWV  ;  veraycchith  I ;  verdegrese  H.  Venym — vynegre]  Wormes  (or 
Wernies— -first  two  letters  over  erasure)  or  wynagre  or  wenom  E ;  Wyrinys  or  vermyn 
or  vinegre  or  wyriuis  A.  Instead  of  this  line  L  reads :  Of  leosardes  or  of  lobbes 
venym  hath  me  laghte.  71.  Walewi\>]  And  walweth  L;  walles  EVH  ;  waldejj 

W;  Walkyn  A.  wombe]  wombe  quo|?  he  H.  <fc]  or  VH.  as]  om.  RDVH.  wene] 
trowe  W.  waxi\> — wene]  worcheth  me  wrathe  L. 

71,  72,  73  form  one  line  in  A:  Walkyn  in  my  wombe,  werkyn  or  I  dyne. 
72.  /  mi$te]  Myght  I  W  ;  I  ne  rnihte  V  ;  \>at  I  myghte  L.  many]  many  a  RDgH. 
many — don]  leve  mony  3eres  E.  a  man  mitfe] ;  a  man  suld  EW ;  a  man  owghte 
DgLVH.  73.  wynd]  a  wynde  W.  wexi^p]  waxed  D.  dyne]  dye  V.  er  I  dyne] 
alway  W. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  387 

I  haue  a  nei^ebour  nei}  me  I  haue  noi3ed  hym  ofte 
75  And  blamide  hym  behynde  his  bak  to  bringe  hym  in  fame 
To  apeire  hym  be  my  power  I  pwrsuide  wel  ofte 
And  belowen  hym  to  lordis  to  don  hym  lese  siluer 
And  don  hise  frendis  ben  hise  fon  )>oru3  my  false  tunge 
His  grace  &  hise  gode  happis  greuide  me  wel  sore 
80  Betwyn  hym  &  his  meyne  I  haue  mad  wraj?]?e 
BoJ>e  his  lyme  &  his  lif  was  lost  J?oru3  my  tunge 
Whanne  I  mette  hym  in  a  market  ]?at  I  most  hatide 
I  hailside  hym  as  hendely  as  I  his  frend  were 
He  is  dou3tiere  J?anne  I  I  dar  non  harm  don  hym 
85  Ac  hadde  I  maistrie  &  mi3t  I  wolde  nrnrdre  hym  for  euere 
Whanne  I  come  to  ]>e  chirche  &  knelide  to  J?e  rode 
To  preye  for  |?e  peple  as  ]>e  prest  techi]? 

74.  a  nei$ebour]  a  nextbur  E ;  ne3eboris  H.  neij,  me]  nere  me  EDg ;  by 
me  W  ;  me  neih  V ;  many  H.  /  haue  noised]  I  noyed  RE ;  Yat  I  haue  noy3ed  I ; 
hath  noyd  A.  hym]  hem  WH ;  me  A ;  om.  I.  ofte]  wel  ofte  RU ;  full  ofte  E. 
75.  And  blamide]  I  blamed  E  ;  Ablamed  V.  hym — his]  hem — here  H.  his  bak] 
W  omits,  to  bringe]  to  putte  W;  &  brouht  I.  hym]  hem  HW.  in  fame]  to 
defame  L ;  in  defaut  WH ;  in  disclauwdre  V. 

A  omits  II.  75  and  76 ;  H  puts  them  after  I.  77.  76.  To  apeire]  To  pare  EW  ; 
And  peired  V.  hym]  om.  W  ;  hem  H.  be]  with  UI ;  in  E.  /  pursuide]  I  persewed 
hym  E,  hem  W  ;  I  haue  pursued  L  ;  y  preued  (error  for  per[s]ued  1)  H  ;  I-punissched 
himV.  wel  ofte]i\\\  ofte  DVH  ;  ofte  UEIW;  feole  sithes  L.  77.  Jno1]  and  als  E ; 
and  eke  DgLH  ;  om.  WV;  I  haue  A.  belowen]  yley  on  U  ;  misloued  E  ;  apayryd  I ; 
ybulled  H.  hym]  om.  A ;  hem  H.  lordis]  \>e  lord  H.  don]  gar  E ;  make  VH. 
hym]  hem  H.  hym  lese]  losse  hys  E.  78.  And]  To  E  ;  Tho  A ;  om.  WV ;  I  H. 
don]  gar  E  ;  mad  L  ;  I-don  V ;  made  H.  hise — hise]  here — here  H.  ben]  to  ben  R. 
\>oru^]  with  DAVH.  my]  his  U.  tunge]  wordes  L  ;  talys  EA. 

79,  80.  Misplaced  'after  1.  83  in  I.  79,  80,  81.  Misplaced  after  I.  85  D  ; 

omitted  LH.  81.  Omitted  I. 

79.  gode  happis]  godnes  EA.  happis]  happ  DgWV.  greuide]  greuyth  AV  ; 
greuen  WI.  wel]  om.  UIA  ;  full  EDWV.  sore]  ofte  A.  80.  hym — meyne]  man 
&  his  meyne  I ;  men  &  here  me'ne  A ;  him  &  his  wyf  W ;  men  &  yair  wyftes  E. 
I  haue]  om.  R  ;  haue  I  W.  mad  wra\>]>e]  wratthe  made  ofte  R ;  mad  ofte  wratthe  U ; 
made  striffe  ofte  E  ;  maked  wreche  A.  81.  his— lif]  lymme  &  life  DgW  ;  lyme 

&  lith  E ;  lyfe  &  leme  A ;  his  lyf  and  his  leome  V.  tunge]  wikkyd  tonge  A. 
82.  Whanne]  And  whan  W ;  but  when  H.  mette]  mete  I.  hym]  om.  DW.  a]  om. 
RUDDgWLI ;  )>e  EAVH.  most]  so  muche  L.  hatide]  hate  IVW.  83.  hailside] 
heylid  AV ;  hals  W.  hym]  om.  W.  as  hendely]  so  hendeliche  L ;  hendely  I ;  als 
frendly  EWA.  Here  H  has  a  hole  (roughly  an  inch  in  diameter),  which  breaks  into 
four  lines,  as  I]  so  I  L.  as — frend]  his  frend  as  I  V.  84.  He  is]  He  was  A  ; 

But  he  was  H.  He — \>anne  1]  Bot  he  yat  is  doghtyer  E.  dou^tiere  \>anne  I]  hole  in 
H.  /  dar]  durste  R ;  I  durste  H.  no]  do  W.  don  hym]  him  done  L.  non—hym] 
bede  hym  none  harm  H.'  85.  Ac]  But  DgWLV ;  And  E ;  om.  A ;  }if  H.  hadde 
I]  I  hed  E  ;  y  had  had  H.  maistrie]  j?e  maystrie  W.  <&]  or  REDg  ;  o\>ir  U.  &  miyt] 
om.  WI.  maistrie  &  mi^ht]  hole  in  H.  wolde — hym]  wolde  him  mayme  L  ;  wold  a 
dystroyed  hym  A ;  Mor{>erde  him  V ;  hadde  maymed  hym  H.  86.  come]  came 

DgA.  -e  to  \>e  chir-]  hole  in  H.  <&]  to  WH.  knelide]  knele  RUH2WLIVH ;  suld 
knele  E.  to]  before  RAV;  afore  U.  87.  To]  I  LI  A;  And  scholde  V.  preye] 
preyd  A.  techi\>]  me  techys  RU;  vs  teche}>  V;  prechij?  H. 

25—2 


388  The  Text  of  l Piers  Plowman' 

Aftir  Jeanne  I  01136  on  my  knes  ]>at  crist  gyue  hym  sorewe 
pat  bar  a  wey  my  bolle  &  my  broken  shete 
Fro  )?e  auter  myn  ei3e  I  turne  &  beholde 

91,  92  How  heyne  ha)?  a  newe  cote  I  wysshe  it  were  myn  howne 
And  of  his  lesinges  I  Iau3e  )?erof  in  myn  herte 
Ac  of  his  wynnyng  I  wepe  and  weile  )?e  tyme 
95  I  deme  men  ]>ere  J?ei  don  ille  &  3et  I  do  wers 
I  wolde  )?at  iche  wi3t  were  my  knaue 
And  who  so  ha)?  more  )?anne  I  )?at  angri)?  myn  herte 
pus  I  lyue  loueles  as  a  ly)?er  dogge 
And  al  my  brest  bolni)?  for  bittir  of  my  galle 

Between  II.  87  and  88  three  MSS.  insert  a  line:  For  pilgrames  for  palmers  for  all 
ye  peple  eftir  EW  ;  for  all]  &  for  A.  88.  Aftir  ]>anne]  Aftir  f>at  UW ;  Than 

ELAVH ;  After  D  ;  &  aft/r  I.  /  crije]  crie  I  L ;  I  prey  U  j  bidde  I  H.  Aftir— 
knes]  On  my  knes  J»an  I  cryed  A.  on]  vppon  V.  on  my  knes]  on  mekely  Dg ;  as 
oof  W ;  wifj  my  mou|j  H.  / — knes]  knelyd  I  vpon  my  kneys  &  praed  E.  \>at]  om. 
RUE.  crist}  god  WA  ;  oure  lady  RU.  hym]  hem  RWLAVH  ;  yaim  E.  89.  bar] 
haj?  I -bore  V.  bolle]  blake  bolle  H2;  bolles  L.  broken]  brode  RUV.  shete]  schetes 
L.  A  reads:  That  brokyn  my  bolle  &  borne  awey  my  schete. 

90.  L  omits  this  line.     Fro]  Than  fro  W  ;  And  also  from  E ;  Also  to  forne  A. 
myn^turne]  y  turne  myn  eije  UV ;  myn  eyen  down  than  I  turne  Dg ;  I  turne  me 
H  ;  my  ene  I  twrned  E  ;  yt  myne  eyne  I  turnyd  A ;  I  myu  eien  cast  W.    &  beholde] 
begins  next  line  in  EDgWLA ;    And  beholdith  Dg ;    and  byholde  heyne  H ;   and 
byhelde  REA. 

91,  92.     Here  are  two  lines  in  all  MSS.  but  TH2D.     howne]  om.  D.        91.    heyne] 
Hyk  Dg ;  hoge  I ;  haue  W ;  he  H  ;  rnony  E.    ha\>]  bed  EA.    a  newe  cote]  new  cote}  E. 
How — howne]  And— cote  DgEWA ;   y  byholde  byholde  byhynde  me  on  a  neowe 
kote  haue  L  ;  How — cote  &  his  wyf  anoyer  IVH.          92.     RU  have:  and  al  \>e  wele 
J>at  he  ha}?  greuef*  me  wel  sore.     In  the  eight  remaining  MSS.  the  follmcing  line,  with 
slight  variations,  occurs:  Than  I  wische  it  war  myn  and  al  the  webbe  after  DglV. 
Than]  Anon  W.     /  wische]  wische  y  HL  ;  I  wissyd  yat  E  ;  I  wyschid  A.     it]  yai  E. 
and]  with  E.     webbe]  webbej  E 1;  his  wele  H.         93.     And  of]  Of  RUDgWLIAVH  ; 
At  E  ;  And  alwey  after  D.     his]  om.  H2;  yair  E.     lau^e]  smyle  RU.     \>erof  in]  and 
fyerof  laujeth  RU  ;  &  light  was  E ;  it  liketh  DglH  ;  hit  lightenes  LW ;  a  lytil  in  A ; 
hit  like],  me  in  V.     myn]  om.  E.  94.     Ac]  And  RH  ;  om.  EA  ;  But  DgWL.     of 
his]  For  yair  E ;   for  his  WIVH.     wepe]  wepyd  EA.     weile]  weylid  A ;   werys  E. 
tyme]  while  LA.           95.     men]  om.  W.     \>ere  ]>e{]  \>ere  y  U  ;  J>ey  LH  ;  {?at  he  W  ; 
]>at  VIDg.     ille]  euyll  EDLH.     I  do]  do  y  L.      wers]  wel  worse  VE.     EA  have  two 
lines  here:  And  I  deme  in  my  hert  at  mony  doys  euyll,  And  jit  I  do  me  wel  wers  I 
do  me  on  my  seluen  E ;  I  deme  men  in  myne  hert  yat  yai  don  ille,  But  jit  I  do 
werse  be  dom  of  my  selfe  A. 

96.  DW  omit.  I]  For  I  EVH.  \>at]  om.  L.  iche]  euerilke  E ;  alle  H.  wijt] 
wyje  L  ;  a  wythe  A ;  a  wiht  V  ;  wijtes  H.  wolde — wi$t]  couet  yat  eueryman  I.  were] 
wer  becomon  El  ;  i«  )>is  world  were  V ;  in  world  were  H.  knaue]  knaues  H.  L 
reads:  weore  my  knaue  in  }>is  world  wonyng.  97.  And  who  so]  And  whas  J?at  L ; 
And  qwo  yat  I ;  Who  J>at  W.  ha\>]  haue  A.  ],at]  he  L  ;  it  WAH  ;  gretly  E.  angri\>] 
greuyth  A.  98.  \)us]  Bot  yus  E ;  And  J?us  WA.  loueles]  lawles  E.  as]  lyk 
RUEDDgWLIAVH.  ly]>er]  lu|>er  V  ;  lethir  EH  ;  leother  L  ;  ledur  A.  99.  And] 
pat  RUEDgLIVH ;  Thau  W.  al]  om.  I.  bolni],]  Belief*  VH.  my— bolni],]  bolnyth 
my  breste  U.  bitter]  bitternes  E. 

Between  II.  99  and  100  W  inserts  two  B  lines:  I  might  not  etc  many  jere  as  a  man 
sholde,  For  enuie  &  euel  will  is  ill  to  dene. 


R.    W.    CHAMBERS,    J.    H.    G.    GRATTAN  389 

roo  May  no  sugre  ne  swet  J>ing  swage  it  an  vnche 

Ne  no  dyapendyon  dryue  it  fro  myn  herte 

^if  }>at  shrift  shulde  it  shop  a  gret  wondire 

^is  redily  qua)?  repentaunce  &  redde  hym  to  goode 

Sorewe  for  synne  saui}?  wel  manye 
105  I  am  sory  qua]>  enuye  I  am  but  selde  6\>ere 

And  ]>at  makij?  me  so  mad  for  I  ne  may  me  venge 

100,  101.  The  second  halves  of  these  lines  have  been  transposed  in  VH,  spoiling 
the  metre;  thus:  May — swete,  dryue  &c. :  Ne  no  Diopendion  aswagen  &c. 
100.  May]  jer  may  I ;  Ther  is  W.  ne]  ne  no  DA ;  no  L.  ne — \>ing]  so  swete  WV. 
swage]  may  swage  W  ;  asswage  DglVH ;  swete  R.  it]  rne  E.  an  vnche]  on  ynche 
E ;  vnnej?e  VH.  101.  dyapendyon]  diapendion  REDgLI ;  dyapendron  A ; 

Diopendion  V;  diapenydion  UW ;  dyapenidioim  H, ;  diapenydyon  D.  dryue]  drawe 
A.  102.  tyf  \>at]  And  }if  |>at  W  ;  }if  RDIVH  ;  And  if  EDgA ;  And  >arcne  3ef 

any  L.  shrift]  schrit  V.  it]  me  I.  shop]  schepe  D  ;  stoppe  EH2A ;  saue  LI ;  fe/me 
swopen  out  V  ;  aswage  H.  it  shop]  om.  RUW ;  aswage  it  H.  a — wondir]  hit  were 
gret  wonder  REA ;  it  were  a  gret  wondir  U ;  a  gret  wonder  hit  were  V ;  nowe 
a  wonder  it  were  W ;  semed  hit  a  gret  wondur  L ;  me  thiugith  it  were  wondere  I ; 
wonder  me  pinkej)  H.  103.  $ii]  A  }is  A.  redily]  rede  I  E.  redde]  rede  H2.  him] 
hem  W.  to  goode]  to  J?e  best  H  ;  ye  best  EA.  104.  Sorewe]  Oft  sorwe  W;  And  saide 
sorwe  L.  for]  of  her  I ;  for  his  D  ;  for  heore  VH.  synne]  synnes  EDglAV ;  synnej) 
H.  sauty]  saue  D.  wel]  ofte  wel  L;  full  EH;  men  ful  V;  om.  A.  manye]  many 
on  A.  105.  /]  And  I  Dg.  am  but]  am  Dg ;  nam  but  WH ;  ne  am  out  V. 
selde]  seldom  UEWA ;  selden  Dg ;  seilden  L ;  seldyn  I ;  seldene  V.  o]>ere]  jer  E. 

Between  II.  105  and  106  A  inserts :  Also  wilde  in  hert  &  pensyue  in  hert  & 
thouth.  106.  And]  om.  U.  ]>at]  om.  L.  so]  om.  EW.  mad]  mate  Dgl.  for] 

om.  W  ;  |>at  LA.  ne  may  me]  no  may  me  L ;  may  me  not  W ;  may  not  A.  venge] 
avengyn  I. 

R.  W.  CHAMBERS. 
J.  H.  G.  GRATTAN. 

LONDON. 


MISCELLANEOUS   NOTES. 

THE  SEPULCHRES  AT  POLA  REFERRED  TO  BY  DANTE. 

IN  the  ninth  canto  of  the  Inferno  Dante  compares  the  tombs  in 
which  the  heretics  are  confined  in  the  sixth  circle  of  Hell  to  the 
sepulchres  at  Aries  and  Pola. 

SI  come  ad  Arli,  ove  Rodano  stagna, 

SI  com'  a  Pola  presso  del  Quarnaro, 

Che  Italia  chiude  e  suoi  termini  bagna, 
Fanuo  i  sepolcri  tutto  il  loco  varo : 

Cosl  facevan  quivi  d'  ogni  parte, 

Salvo  che  il  modo  v'  era  piii  amaro. 

Inferno  ix,  112 — 117. 

Dante,  no  doubt,  heard  of  the  sepulchres  at  Pola  from  pilgrims  to  the 
Holy  Land,  the  '  Palmieri '  of  whom  he  speaks  in  the  Vita  Nuova  (§  41 ,. 
11.  35  ff.).  These  sepulchres,  and  the  remains  of  the  great  Roman 
amphitheatre,  were  objects  of  interest  many  years  after  Dante's  time 
to  those  who  were  on  their  way  to  the  Holy  Land.  Pola,  at  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  Istrian  Peninsula,  was  the  first  stage  on  the 
voyage  to  Jerusalem  from  Venice,  the  port  of  departure,  from  which  it 
was  a  day's  sail. 

Several  contemporary  accounts  of  the  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  Land 
have  been  preserved,  of  which  the  best  known  are  the  Viaggio  al  Monte 
Sinai,  in  1384,  of  Simone  Sigoli  of  Florence;  the  Saint  Voyage  de 
Jherusalem,  in  1395,  of  the  Seigneur  d'Anglure;  and  the  Viaggio  in 
Terra  Santa,  in  1431,  of  Ser  Mariano  of  Siena. 

Simone  Sigoli  does  not  mention  Pola,  as  he  and  his  party  did  not 
touch  there.  Apparently  they  met  with  contrary  winds,  for  when  they 
were  four  days  out  from  Venice  they  had  got  no  further  than  the 
mouth  of  the  Gulf  of  Quarnero.  Here  they  were  caught  in  a  violent 
storm,  such  as  is  often  encountered  off  that  gulf,  which  as  Simone 


Miscellaneous  Notes  391 

remarks,  well  deserves  its  name  of  Carnaro1, '  charnel-house '  (as  though 
from  Carnarium). 

Both  the  author  of  the  Saint  Voyage  de  Jherusalem  and  Ser  Mariano 
give  detailed  accounts  of  Pola  and  of  the  objects  of  interest  in  the 
neighbourhood.  The  former,  under  the  heading  Paula,  says : 

'  Le  lundi  matin  nous  partismes  du  port  de  Venise ;  sy  arrivasmes 
a  Paula,  qui  est  a  cent  M.  oultre  Venise,  le  mardi  ensuivant,  le  darrien 
jour  d'aoust. 

Paula  est  cite  asse"s  bonne ;  mais  elle  fut  jadis  meilleur,  car  elle  fut 
destruicte  pour  le  temps  de  la  guerre  des  Genevois  et  des  Veniciens2. 
Et  dehors  la  cite,  devers  la  terre,  a  une  tresbelle  fonteine  d'eau  doulce 
devant  laquelle  a  ung  tournoyement,  par  lequel  appert  bien  qu'il  fut 
jadis  moult  bel  et  fait  de  grant  richesses  et  seignorie.  Et  le  fist  faire 
Rolant,  si  comme  Ten  dit,  et  encore  1'appellent  aujourd'uy  le  palaix 
Rolant3.  Et  dehors  ledit  palaix  vers  la  marine,  a  moult  grant  quantite 
le  monumens  de  pierre  entaillee  couvers,  et  sont  sur  terre :  et  y  en  peut 
bien  avoir  environ  iiij°;  et  dedens  les  aucuns  voit  Ten  les  os  des 
chrestiens  qui  illec  furent  mis  apres  une  grande  desconfiture  que 
mescreans  y  firent.  Plusieurs  y  a  desdits  monumens  que  Ten  ne  peut 
veoir  dedans,  car  ilz  sont  trop  couvers.' 

(Ed.  Bonnardot  et  Longnon,  8.  A.  T.  F.,  1878,  pp.  6—7.) 

Ser  Mariano  of  Siena,  who  made  the  voyage  thirty-six  years  later, 
left  Venice  on  St  Mark's  day  (April  25),  and  reached  Pola  the  following 
day: 

'A  di  venticinque  el  di  di  Santo  Marco... in  su  la  nona  la  Galea 
fece  vela  pigliando  el  camino  verso  Terra  Santa. ..A  di  xxvi,  fumo  in 
Istria  nella  citta  di  Pola,  nella  quale  trovammo  uno  edifizio  quasi 
simile  al  Coliseo  di  Roma,  e  molti  altri  nobili  edifizii.  Anco  vi 
trovammo  si  grande  quantita  di  sepulcri  tutti  d'  uno  pezzo  ritratti  come 

1  This  is  doubtless  the  Carrenare  mentioned  by  Chaucer  in  the  Book  of  the  Duchess. 
In  a  note  upon  the  passage  in  his  edition  of  Chaucer's  Treatise  on  the  Astrolabe,  Brae 
quotes  the  following  from  a  Paduan  writer,  Palladio  Negro,  in  illustration  of  the  proverbial 
dangers   of  those  waters  :    '  E   regione  Istriae,  sinu   Polatico,   quern    nautae  carnarium 
vocitant.'     He  gives  a  still  more  striking  passage  from  Vergier,  Bishop  of  Capo  d'  Istria, 
which  is  quoted  by  Sebastian  Munster  in  his  Cosmographie :  '  Par  deca  le  gouffre  enrage 
lequel  on  appelle  vulgairement  Carnarie  d'autantque  le  plus  souvent  on  le  voit  agite  de 
tempestes  horribles  ;   et  la  s'engloutissent  beaucoup  de  navires  et  se  perdent  plusieurs 
hornmes.'     Brae  compared  the  name  Shambles  applied  to  a  dangerous  shoal  off  the  Bill  of 
Portland  by  English  sailors. 

2  The  Genoese  had  destroyed  the  Venetian  fleet  at  Pola,  and  captured  the  town  sixteen 
years  before  (1379). 

3  This  is  the  Boman  amphitheatre,  which  as  late  as  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century 
still  bore  the  name  of  'Orlandino,'  according  to  Spon,  the  antiquary,  who  visited  Pola  in 
1675,  and  described  the  remains  in  his  Voyages  d'ltalie,  de  Dalmatie,  de  Grece  et  du 
Levant  (Lyon,  1677). 


392  Miscellaneous  Notes 

arche,  che  sarebbe  incredibile  a  dire  el  numero  d'  essi  con  molte  ossa 
dentro.  Sono  da  Venegia  a  qui  centovinti  miglia.  Stemmo  due  di. 

(Ed.  Moreni,  Firenze,  1822,  pp.  6—7.) 

The  great  Roman  amphitheatre  at  Pola  stands  to  this  day,  but 
nothing  is  now  to  be  seen  of  the  numerous  sepulchres  referred  to  by 
Dante  and  later  writers.  In  his  work  on  Dalmatia,  the  Quarnero  and 
1  stria,  published  in  1887,  T.  G.  Jackson,  after  mentioning  the  tradition 
that  Dante  once  sojourned  within  the  walls  of  the  Convent  of  San 
Michele  in  Monte  at  Pola,  writes  as  follows: 

'  Between  the  convent  and  the  town  is  supposed  to  have  been  the 
ancient  cemetery,  to  which  Dante  likens  the  rows  of  arks  or  sarcophagi 
in  which  at  a  white  heat  the  heresiarchs  expiate  their  theological 
difficulties : 

SI  come  ad  Arli,  ove  Rodano  stagna,  &c. 

At  Aries  twenty  years  ago  one  could  still  walk  between  avenues  of 

sarcophagi   as   in   the   days  of  Dante At  Pola  all  traces  of  the 

cemetery  have  disappeared ;  but  Signer  Rizzi  (the  conservator  of 
ancient  monuments  at  Pola)  tells  me  that  fragments  of  ancient  tombs 
with  Pagan  inscriptions  abound  in  the  rough  walls  that  divide  the  fields 
of  the  neighbourhood.'  (Vol.  in,  p.  300.) 

PAGET  TOYNBEE. 

BORNHAM,   BUCKS. 


A  FORGOTTEN  ENGLISH  TRANSLATION  OF  BARCLAY'S  'ARGENIS.' 

Not  long  ago  I  was  attracted  by  the  mention,  I  think  in  a  book- 
seller's catalogue  which  I  have  unfortunately  mislaid,  of  what  appeared 
to  be  an  English  translation  of  the  Argenis  by  John  Jacob,  published 
at  Dublin  in  1734.  Such  a  version  was  quite  unknown  to  me  and 
seemed  generally  to  have  escaped  the  notice  of  students  of  Barclay. 
No  reference  is  made  to  it  under  Barclay's  life  in  the  D.N.B.  nor  is  it 
included  in  the  long  list  of  translations  given  in  the  second  chapter  of 
K.  F.  Schmid's  John  Barclays  Argenis  (Berlin  and  Leipzig,  1904)1.  It 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  British  Museum,  and,  as  I  am  informed,  it  is 
not  in  the  library  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin.  At  the  suggestion  of 

1  Mr  Schmid's  useful  monograph  requires  to  be  corrected  and  supplemented  in  several 
particulars.  For  example  he  is  sceptical  on  p.  189  as  to  the  existence  of  the  1643  (Rouen) 
edition  of  de  Mouchemberg's  continuation  of  the  Argenis  mentioned  by  Mr  Albert  Collignon 
(p.  179  of  the  latter's  Notes  sur  L'Argenis  de  Jean  Barclay,  Paris  and  Nancy,  1902). 
I  can  vouch  for  this  being  no  ghost-book  as  I  have  a  copy  in  my  own  collection. 


Miscellaneous  Notes  393 

Mr  Alfred  de  Burgh  I  applied  for  information  to  that  authority  on 
Irish  bibliography,  Mr  E.  R.  MCC.  Dix,  who  most  courteously  lent  me 
a  copy  of  the  book  in  his  own  possession.  This  has  enabled  me  to  give 
the  following  account. 

The  title  runs :  The  |  Adventures  |  Of  |  Poliarchus  |  And  |  Argenis. 
Translated  from  the  Latin  of  John  |  Barclay.  |  By  the  Revd.  Mr.  John 
Jacob.  |  Dublin :  |  Printed  by  James  Hoey,  at  the  Sign  of  Mercury  \  in 
Skinner-Row,  opposite  to  the  Tholsel,  1734. 

The  collation  is  Title  1  p.,  1  p.  blank,  Dedication  ('To  Her  Grace,  the 
Dutchess  of  Dorset ')  3  pp.,  1  p.  blank,  preface  pp.  i — xiii,  1  p.  blank, 
pp.  1 — 274.  The  recipient  of  the  dedication  was  apparently  chosen  as 
being  the  wife  of  the  Lord  Lieutenant. 

On  p.  i  of  the  preface  the  reader  is  informed  that  '  the  Original  of 
this  Translation  was  written  by  the  learn'd  John  Barclay,  on  purpose, 
(as  most  suppose,)  to  amuse  King  Henry  the  Hid.  of  France,  a  Prince 
unfit  for  the  Reins  of  Government,  into  his  Duty  under  a  diverting 
Relation  of  the  Adventures  of  two  chaste  and  constant  Lovers.'  The 
translator  has  plainly  troubled  himself  but  little  about  the  chronology 
of  his  author's  life.  Barclay  was  seven  years  old  at  the  time  of  Henry 
the  third's  assassination  !  We  are  told  that  James  I  '  not  only  settled 
a  yearly  Pension  of  some  Thousands  of  Crowns  on  him,  but  also  made 
him  one  of  his  Privy  Council ;  Honours,  which  enroll  him  among  the 
great  Heroes  of  the  learn'd  World.'  On  the  same  page  Virgil  and 
Homer,  who  '  have  only  one  principal  Design  in  their  poems '  are 
contrasted  with  '  the  soaring  genius  of  Barclay.'  As  regards  the  details 
of  the  story  Mr  Jacob  is  anxious  that  his  readers'  faith  should  not  be 
too  severely  strained.  One  thing  he  apprehends  'may  perhaps  be 
thought  on  first  sight  to  exceed  the  bounds  of  what  Criticks  call  the 
Marvelous '  and  that  is — the  mention  of  artificial  ice.  But  having 
heard  that  the  '  Virtuoso's  of  France  '  have  produced  artificial  snow  '  for 
the  Entertainment  of  Louis  XIV '  he  is  '  humbly  of  Opinion  it  may  be 
as  possible  to  make  artificial  Ice  too.'  Jacob  is  aware  that  the  Argenis 
has  been  translated  already.  '  Before  I  undertook  this  Performance,  I 
found  there  was  extant  an  old  English  literal  Translation  of  Barclay  of 
almost  an  Hundred  Years  standing'  (it  would  seem,  if  this  is  to  be  taken 
literally,  that  the  second  edition  of  Kingsmill  Long  (1636)  had  come 
under  the  translator's  eye).  '  The  original,'  he  continues,  '  is  pursu'd  in 
so  close  and  servile  a  Manner  by  the  Translator,  that,  as  Mr  Dryden 
says  of  Holiday's  Version  of  Juvenal,  he  loses  the  Spirit  of  the  Author 
when  he  thinks  to  take  his  Body... .His  English  besides  is... obsolete 


394  Miscellaneous  Notes 

and  his  Translation  in  many  places  false '  (Long's  accuracy  can  certainly 
be  impugned). 

But  it  is  not  merely  the  style  of  his  previous  translator  but  much 
of  the  substance  of  Barclay's  book  that  the  Rev.  John  Jacob  feels  would 
be  distasteful  to  the  audience  whom  he  has  in  view.  '  I  question,'  he 
writes,  'whether  the  best  Hand  in  being  could  Translate  Barclay 
verbally  into  English,  so  as  to  satisfy  meer  English  Readers,'  the 
reason  being  that '  Allusions  to  antient  Poets  as  well  as  to  the  Customs 
of  the  Heathen  World,  tho'  they  are  beautiful  to  the  highest  Degree  in 
the  Original  Latin,  yet  would  make  an  uncouth  Figure  in  English.' 

Mr  Jacob  certainly  had  the  courage  of  his  literary  convictions.  He 
laid  violent  hands  on  Argenis,  retrenched  the  '  Allusions  to  antient 
Poets,'  under  which  he  seems  to  have  included  Barclay's  own  verses 
which  are  so  freely  interspersed  in  the  original,  and,  in  order  to  bring 
the  tone  still  more  into  harmony  with  his  readers'  taste,  Christianized 
the  characters,  changing  the  time  of  action  from  the  days  before  the 
world  had  owned  the  rule  of  Rome  to  '  about  the  Declension  of  the 
fourth  Century.'  Thus  when  Poliarchus  disguised  as  a  girl  displays 
unexpected  heroism  in  defence  of  the  king  and  his  daughter,  he  is 
mistaken,  not  for  the  goddess  Minerva,  but  for  an  angel. 

It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  long  discussions  that  break  Barclay's 
narrative  receive  little  mercy  from  Mr  Jacob,  although  on  the  night 
before  the  attack  on  Argenis  and  himself  Meleander  edifies  the  company 
by  relating  a  conference  he  has  had  with  an  Epicurean  Atheist. 

The  style  is  such  as  might  be  expected.  We  read  'how  king 
Poliarchus  when  in  the  Capacity  of  a  private  Man  in  Sicily  had  fall'n 
a  Victim  to  the  Princess'  exact  Harmony  of  Features,  and  her  many 
endearing  Charms  of  Virtue/  and,  when  all  obstacles  to  the  lovers' 
union  have  been  finally  overcome,  '  Description  can  give  but  a  faint 
Image  of  their  Happiness :  Sweet  Blessings,  soft  Transports,  and 
Downy  Exstasys  attended  their  Lives  from  the  Hour  of  their 
Marriage.' 

Though  the  performance  here  described  is  scarcely  a  translation  in 
the  stricter  sense,  but  only  an  English  rendering  of  the  bare  story  of 
Barclay's  book,  yet  it  undoubtedly  possesses  a  certain  interest.  It 
must  have  a  place  in  the  literary  history  of  Argenis,  as  an  attempt  to 
offer  this  romance  in  an  English  dress,  coming  between  the  versions  of 
Kingsmill  Long  (1625  and  1636)  and  Le  Grys  (1629)  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Clara  Reeve's  The  Phoenix;  or  the  History  of  Polyarchus  and 
Argenis  (1772)  on  the  other.  The.  tastelessness  of  the  adaptation  fairly 


Miscellaneous  Notes  395 

illustrates  the  attitude  of  the  day  towards  the  literature  of  this  earlier 
period. 

More  than  a  century  before  Jacob,  indeed  only  three  years  after  the 
appearance  of  the  original,  Bishop  Coeffeteau  had  produced  a  French 
abridgement  of  the  Argenis.  This  differs  in  detail  from  the  present 
work. 

EDWARD  BENSLY. 

ABERYSTWYTH. 


NATHANIEL  FIELD  AND  JOSEPH  TAYLOR. 

The  dating  of  the  plays  in  the  collection  ascribed  to  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  depends  to  some  extent  on  the  succession  of  actors  in  the 
King's  company.  In  particular,  the  actor-list  attached  to  The  Laws  of 
Candy  in  the  Folio  of  1679  includes  the  name  of  Joseph  Taylor,  but  not 
that  either  of  Richard  Burbage  or  of  Nathaniel  Field.  It  is  therefore 
of  interest  to  know  when  Taylor  joined  and  Field  left  the  company, 
Burbage  and  Field  are  in  the  license  of  March  27,  1619  (Hazlitt, 
English  Drama  and  Stage,  50),  but  Burbage  had  died  on  the  previous 
March  13,  presumably  while  the  document  was  in  preparation.  On  the 
following  May  20,  Lord  Chamberlain  Pembroke  wrote  to  Lord  Hay  of 
a  play  'which  I  being  tender-hearted  could  not  endure  to  see  so 
soone  after  the  loss  of  my  old  acquaintance  Burbadg'  (Athenaeum,  1882, 
I,  103).  It  is  known  from  the  actor-list  of  Webster's  Duchess  of  Malfy 
(1623)  that  Taylor  succeeded  to  Burbage's  part  of  Ferdinand,  and 
Mr  Fleay  conjectures  (Biographical  Chronicle,  I,  173)  that  Field  'was 
disappointed  at  Taylor's  being  imported  as  Burbage's  successor,  and 
retired  disgusted'  in  1619.  Conjectures  are  all  the  better  when  there 
is  some  evidence  to  support  them,  and  it  is  therefore  worth  while  to 
call  attention  to  two  documents  calendared  amongst  Lord  De  La  Warr's 
manuscripts  (Hist.  MSS.  iv,  299)  and  doubtless  belonging  to  the  papers 
of  Sir  Lionel  Cranfield,  afterwards  Earl  of  Middlesex,  the  Master  of  the 
Wardrobe.  They  are  warrants  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain  for  the 
allowances  due  to  the  players  for  liveries,  and  are  dated  May  19,  1619 
and  April  7,  1621.  In  the  1619  warrant  the  names  are  the  same  as 
those  in  the  license  of  that  year,  with  the  exception  that  Joseph  Taylor 
replaces  Richard  Burbage.  But  by  1621  there  is  a  further  change  in 
the  substitution  for  Nathan  Field  of  John  Rice.  Field,  therefore,  had 
left  the  company  between  May,  1619  and  April,  1621.  It  is  probable 


3%  Miscellaneous  Notes 

that  he  had  left  it  by  August,  1619,  since  his  successor,  John  Rice,  was 
amongst  the  players  in  Sir  John  van  Olden  Barnevelt  (Bullen,  Old  Plays, 
II,  201),  which  is  known  to  have  been  produced  in  that  month 
(Athenaeum,  Jan.  19,  1884).  It  is  true  that  he  only  played  a 
Captain,  and  that  all  the  players  were  not  necessarily  full  members  of 
the  company,  but,  as  he  was  already  a  member  of  the  Lady  Elizabeth's 
men  in  1611  (Greg,  Henslowe  Papers,  18,  111),  it  is  not  particularly 
likely  that  he  joined  the  King's  men  in  any  other  capacity.  Whether 
Field's  retirement  was  due  to  disgust  at  the  introduction  of  Taylor, 
I  cannot  say. 

E.  K.  CHAMBERS. 
LONDON. 


ENGLISH  'MULLION,'  FRENCH  'MENEAU.' 

The  N.E.D.  regards  monial,  mullion,  munnion  as  of  identical  origin,  all 
from  the  O.F.  forms  of  meneau,  of  unknown  origin.  Scheler,  s.v.  meneau, 
conjectured  derivation  from  O.F.  '*meienel,  der.  de  medianus...Y  anglais 
a  mullion,  munnion  =  meneau  ;  ils  me  font  1'effet  d'etre  gates  de  moielon, 
moienon.'  This  conjecture  is  quite  right,  as  is  shown  by  the  O.F. 
variants  moynel,  moinel,  monial,  meigneaul,  mayneau,  meneau,  etc. 
(v.  N.E.D. ,  s.v.  monial,  and  Godef.  s.v.  manel).  The  form  moynel  occurs 
in  E.  14th — 16th  cent.  (N.E.D.)  and  is  obviously  a  derivative  of  moyen 
(de  fenestre),  the  '  crosse-barre  of  a  window '  (Cotgrave).  Both  moyen 
and  moyenne  are  common  in  O.F.  in  the  sense  of  '  middle '  (v.  Godef.). 
Cf.  moyenner,  'partager  en  deux,'  and  It.  tramezzo,  G.  Mittelpfosten, 
Mittelstuck,  '  mullion.'  The  Mod.  F.  meneau  represents  O.F.  meienel, 
the  diphthong  in  the  protonic  syllable  being  reduced  as  in  menotte  (to 
main);  cf.  O.F.  (cor)  meienel,  cor  de  moyenne  grandeur  (Godef.  s.v. 
moienel).  Mullion  and  munnion  are,  I  think,  of  cognate,  but  not 
identical,  origin.  The  N.E.D.  regards  mullion  as  probably  a  metathetic 
form  of  munial,  and  munnion  as  a  corruption  of  mullion.  The  old 
derivation  (Wedgwood,  Century,  Skeat),  from  mognon,  'stump,'  is 
clearly  wrong,  while  the  dialect  word  muntin,  munton,  etc.,  given  by  the 
Century  Dictionary  under  munnion,  is  obviously  F.  montant  (v.  N.E.D., 
s.v.  muntin).  Mullion  (1567,  N.E.D.)  is,  I  suggest,  O.F.  moilon  (var. 
m.oillon,  meilon,  molon,  moulon,  melon,  moion),  milieu,  centre  (Godef), 
which  is  a  derivative  of  medius.  It  occurs  as  an  architectural  term, 
though  not  in  the  precise  sense  required,  e.g.  '  Ou  moilon  desdis  fouyer 


Miscellaneous  Notes  397 

ou  combe '  (Godef.  1403).  It  has  probably  been  confused  with  moellon, 
'  ashlar,'  '  facing  stone,'  O.F.  moulon,  moilon,  moillon,  moiron  (Godef. 
Comp.),  as  in  the  second  example  in  the  N.E.D.,  s.v.  mullion,  '  Item 
for  mending  the  mullenis  in  the  sylling,  16d.'  (Compt  Buik  of  David 
Wedderburne,  1590,  S.H.S.).  This  is  the  smallest  item  in  a  long 
account  (pp.  63 — 4),  while  the  repairing  of  mullions  would  be  rather 
skilled  work.  Munnion  (1593,  N.E.D.}  is  probably  either,  as  Scheler 
suggests,  *moienon  (cf.  moyen  in  Cotgrave),  or  moyennant  from  moyenner, 
to  halve ;  cf.  montant.  It  may,  however,  be  a  by-form  of  mullion  due  to 
the  influence  of  munton  (v.s.),  which  is  used  in  a  very  similar  sense. 
The  correct  equations  are,  I  suggest,  meneau,  monial  =  *medianale, 
mullion  =  *  medilionem,  munnion  =  * mediaiwnem. 

E.  WEEKLEY. 

NOTTINGHAM. 


REVIEWS. 

Dante  e  la  Franda  dall'  eta  media  al  Secolo  di  Voltaire.  Da  ARTURO 
FARINELLI.  Milan  :  Hoepli,  1908.  2  vols.  8vo.  xxvi  +  560  and 
xiv  +  381  pp. 

Signer  Farinelli,  who  agrees  with  Baretti  that  for  three  centuries 
Dante  was  no  better  known  in  France  than  Confucius,  has  undertaken 
and  has  executed  with  great  skill  a  task  of  considerable  difficulty, 
the  erection  of  an  imposing  edifice  with  very  scanty  materials.  His 
erudition  is  as  great  as  his  industry  is  untiring.  He  has  apparently 
not  only  examined  the  whole  of  French  literature,  but  has  also  read 
most  of  what  has  been  written  about  it  in  the  determination  to  allow 
no  trace  of  the  direct  or  indirect  knowledge  of  Dante  in  France  or  of 
his  influence  on  French  poetry  and  thought  to  escape  notice. 

When  the  reader  opens  the  book  the  number  of  proper  names,  the 
wealth  of  references  and  quotations  may  remind  him  of  the  avalanche 
of  slips  described  by  M.  Anatole  France  as  descending  upon  and  over- 
whelming the  too  diligent  student.  But  he  need  not  fear  this  fate  for 
our  author,  who  bears  all  the  weight  of  his  learning  lightly.  His 
dithyrambic  appreciations  of  '  il  sommo,'  his  often  acute  and  invariably 
interesting  criticism  of  French  authors,  from  Jean  de  Meun  to  Voltaire, 
his  speculations  as  to  how  far  they  would  have  been  capable  of 
appreciating  and  understanding  the  great  poet,  whose  name  they  often 
had  never  heard,  are  rarely  wanting  in  vivacity  and  insight. 

Signer  Farinelli  never  yields  to  the  temptation  of  exaggerating  the 
fame  and  influence  outside  Italy  of  him  whom  he  regards  as  the  greatest 
as  well  as  the  most  sublime  of  poets.  The  same  determination  to  believe 
nothing  for  which  there  is  not  good  evidence,  makes  him  reject  the 
stories  of  Dante's  travels  north  of  the  Alps.  He  shows  how  little 
weight  ought  to  be  allowed  to  Villani's  vague  assertion  that  Dante 
visited  Paris  and  many  other  parts  of  the  world,  and  to  the  ampli- 
fication of  this  statement  by  the  fertile  fancy  of  Boccaccio.  Not  only, 
according  to  him,  did  the  poet  never  seek  wisdom  in  her  chosen  abode, 
the  Rue  de  Fouarre,  but  he  never  even  trod  the  rough  road  between 
Lerici  and  Turbia  or  marvelled  at  the  tombs  which  crowd  the  Elysian 
Fields  of  Aries  where  the  Rhone  first  begins  to  linger. 

Signor  Farinelli  shows  that  though  the  name  of  Dante  is  occasionally 
mentioned  by  French  writers  before  Charles  VIII  crossed  the  Alps,  there 


Reviews  399 

is  little  to  suggest  that  he  was  to  them  more  than  a  name,  except  in 
the  case  of  one  popular  author  of  the  fourteenth  century,  Christine  de 
Pisan,  the  daughter  of  the  Italian  astrologer  and  physician  of  Charles  V, 
who  was  left  a  widow  with  a  young  family  and  an  aged  mother  dependent 
on  her,  and  who  was  probably  the  first  woman  to  make  her  living  by 
literature  as  a  profession. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  two  French  authors  who  before  the  end  of 
the  eighteenth  century  were  the  most  appreciative  students  of  the 
Divine  Poet  and  whose  works  show  the  most  abundant  traces  of  his 
influence  should  both  have  been  women — Christine  de  Pisan  and 
Margaret  d'Angouleme,  Queen  of  Navarre.  In  the  lives  of  both  of 
these  women,  versed  in  all  the  learning  and  culture  of  their  age,  in  the 
character  and  bent  of  their  genius  we  may  find  the  explanation  of  the 
attraction  exercised  on  them  by  the  great  Tuscan.  The  loss  of  her 
husband  overshadowed  Christine's  life,  while  Margaret  of  Anjou  lavished 
the  treasures  of  her  devotion  on  an  ungrateful  husband  and  an  unfeeling 
brother.  The  ardent  and  mystically  expressed,  the  quintessential  passion 
of  Dante  for  his  dead  mistress  must  have  touched  a  kindred  cord  in  the 
hearts  of  these  women,  in  both  of  whom  moreover  a  strong  tendency  to 
religious  mysticism  was  combined  with  much  shrewd  and  even  prosaic 
common  sense. 

Signor  Farinelli  fully  explains  why  although  the  intercourse  between 
France  and  Italy  during  the  eighteenth  century  was  close  and  con- 
tinuous Dante  still  continued  to  be  little  more  than  a  name  to  French 
authors.  We  are  inclined  to  think  that,  if  anything,  he  rather 
minimises  the  knowledge  in  France  of  the  Divine  Comedy  during  this 
period.  The  translation  by  Grangier  was  not  published  before  1596, 
but  there  must  have  been  a  public  to  buy  the  editions  published  at 
Lyons  in  the  first  half  of  the  century.  Yet  he  is  doubtless  right  in 
refusing  to  accept  two  quotations  by  Montaigne  as  any  proof  that  the 
author  of  the  Essays  had  read  the  Divine  Comedy.  One,  the  simile  of 
the  Ants  (Purgatorio,  xxvi,  13),  is  to  be  found  in  the  Ercolano  of 
Varchi,  a  book  known  to  Montaigne,  the  other  '  che  non  men  che  saver, 
dubbiar  m'  aggrata '  (Inf.,  XI,  93)  is  a  line  which  Montaigne  is  likely  to 
have  met  elsewhere  and  which  certainly  would  dwell  in  the  memory  of 
the  sceptic. 

It  is  remarkable  that  Aubigne,  a  poet,  a  theologian  and  an  historian, 
should  not  have  known  Dante  with  whom  his  friend  Duplessis  Mornay 
was  at  least  sufficiently  acquainted  for  controversial  purposes ;  but 
Signor  Farinelli  does  not  agree  with  those  who  hold  that  the  Huguenot 
Satirist  must  have  read  the  Divine  Comedy  because  he  sometimes  is 
inspired  by  its  very  spirit :  as  when  he  says  '  Que  nous  sommes  vestus 
de  splendeur  eterneile '  or  speaks  of '  1'eternelle  soif  de  Fimpossible  mort' 
as  the  chief  torment  of  the  damned.  Certainly  the  deep  religious 
feeling  which  runs  through  the  verse  of  the  Protestant  soldier,  the 
fierce  indignation,  the  pregnant  and  picturesque  compression,  not 
unfrequently  remind  us  of  the  Florentine  poet,  but  so  kindred  a  genius 
had  it  borrowed  at  all  would  have  borrowed  more.  If  Aubigne  had 


400  Reviews 

known  Dante  we  should  find  traces  of  his  influence  on  every  page  of 
Les  Tragiques. 

It  was,  as  our  author  points  out,  the  hesitating  appreciation  and 
scarcely  less  emphatic  denunciation  of  Dante  by  Voltaire  which  first 
spread  the  fame  of  the  great  Florentine  in  France.  Boileau  had 
formulated  the  final,  immutable  laws  of  art.  Everything  must  approve 
itself  to  '  le  Gout,'  to  that  taste  which  was  the  outcome  of  the  traditions 
of  classical  antiquity,  of  the  Renaissance,  of  Cartesian  rationalism  and 
of  the  dislike  of  all  that  is  complicated,  heterogeneous  and  obscure, 
which  is,  or  was,  the  characteristic  of  the  French  genius.  Voltaire 
was  a  faithful  follower  of  Boileau  and  had  a  profound  contempt 
for  the  Middle  Ages,  their  religion,  their  philosophy,  their  art,  their 
social  and  political  organisation.  When  all  this  is  taken  into  con- 
sideration we  are  pleasantly  surprised  to  read  in  the  Essai  sur  les 
Moeurs,  'that  the  contemplation  of  such  works  of  human  genius  (as  the 
Divine  Comedy)  is  a  relief  after  our  mind  has  been  directed  to  the 
misfortunes  of  mankind.'  It  is  true  that  he  soon  altered  his  tone  into  one 
of  violent  and  contemptuous  depreciation,  but  his  abuse  was  as  efficacious 
as  his  praise  in  familiarising  the  public  with  the  name,  if  not  with  the 
works,  of  the  sublime  poet. 

Is  not  Signor  Farinelli  a  .little  unjust  to  Voltaire  when  he  pro- 
nounces him  incapable  of  appreciating  the  highest  poetry  ?  Through 
all  the  mist  of  his  prejudices,  in  spite  of  his  education  and  of  the  canons 
of  literary  orthodoxy  in  which  he  was  a  fervent  believer,  he  recognised 
in  his  saner  moods  the  greatness  of  Shakespeare  and  Dante.  Indeed 
may  we  not  ask  whether  it  is  not  the  test  of  really  great,  of  perfect 
poetry  that  its  value  should  be  recognisable,  though  perhaps  not  fully 
valued, '  semper,  ubique,  ab  omnibus '  ?  If  a  poem  can  only  be  appreciated 
after  a  course  of  study,  if  we  have  to  transport  ourselves  by  an  effort  of 
erudite  imagination  into  the  past  before  we  can  understand  and  enjoy 
it,  it  so  far  falls  short  of  perfection.  Torelli,  a  champion  of  Dante 
against  Voltaire,  says  that  a  reader  who  takes  up  the  Divine  Comedy 
qualified  by  a  sound  knowledge  of  Aristotelian  and  scholastic  philosophy, 
by  some  acquaintance  with  physics,  geography,  astronomy  and  con- 
temporary history,  will  find  no  difficulty  in  understanding  what  is  before 
him.  Mr  Butler  advises  those  who  would  read  the  Paradiso  to  study 
Aristotle  De  Coelo,  books  I  and  n,  the  Metaphysics,  the  poet's  Convito 
and  De  Monarchia.  If  they  are  spared  the  whole  of  Aquinas,  it  is  only 
because  they  will  find  the  passages  necessary  to  the  comprehension  of 
the  text  in  the  notes  of  Commentators.  From  which  we  may  infer  that 
when  the  critics  of  the  age  of  Voltaire  complain  that  many  parts  of  the 
sublime  poem  are  crabbed  and  obscure  they  are  not  so  benighted  as 
Signor  Farinelli  would  have  us  believe.  So  much  preparation  is  not 
needed  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  Iliad  or  of  the  book  of  Job,  of  the 
sEneid  or  the  odes  of  Horace,  of  Le  Misanthrope  or  of  Hamlet.  These 
masterpieces  must  delight  all  mankind,  the  learned  and  unlearned. 
So  also,  no  doubt,  do  large  parts  of  the  Divine  Comedy  and  some 
passages  of  the  De  Rerum  Naturd,  but  as  a  whole  these  poems, 


Reviews  401 

'although  their  authors  were  men  of  the  loftiest  genius,  do  not  reach 
perfection,  because  Lucretius  and  Dante  have  attempted  to  force  into 
metrical  form  much  that  is  essentially  unpoetic,  obscure  and  abstruse. 

Has  not  the  nineteenth  century  been  somewhat  blind  to  those 
defects  in  the  Divine  Comedy,  considered  as  a  work  of  art,  which  the 
eighteenth  century  so  greatly  exaggerated  ?  It  could  hardly  have  been 
otherwise.  The  Italians  in  the  fervour  of  aspirations  for  national  unity 
so  happily  realised  could  scarcely  be  impartial  judges  of  a  man  who, 
besides  being  the  creator  of  their  language  and  one  of  the  glories  of 
their  literature,  was  one  of  the  first  and  most  fervid  of  patriots. 
In  France  and  England  the  reaction  in  favour  of  a  Catholicism  which 
was  not  at  first  altogether  that  of  Rome,  the  renewed  interest  in 
mediaeval  life  and  mediaeval  theology,  led  many  to  study  with  enthusiasm 
a  writer  so  learned,  so  religious,  so  orthodox  and  yet  so  unsparing  in  his 
denunciation  of  the  corruptions  of  the  church.  Historians  who  wished 
to  understand  the  Middle  Ages  or  to  trace  the  growth  of  modern  society 
allowed  their  delight  in  the  works  of  Dante  as  an  historical  document 
to  blind  them  to  his  deficiencies  as  a  poet.  To  German  and  other 
scholars  the  Divine  Comedy  offered  a  boundless  field  for  the  exercise  of 
painstaking  erudition  and  ingenuity  of  interpretation,  and  was  therefore 
regarded  with  affectionate  partiality.  But  when  we  judge  a  poem  as 
a  work  of  art  we  ought  to  be  unbiassed  by  the  interest  it  may  awaken 
in  us  as  metaphysicians,  theologians,  historians,  archaeologists  or  inter- 
preters of  aenigmas. 

If  we  approach  the  great  poem  of  Dante  in  the  spirit  of  pure 
aesthetic  criticism — which  was  the  spirit,  however  narrow  their  rules  of 
taste,  of  the  eighteenth  century  critics — we  shall  perhaps  be  forced  to 
allow  that,  although  what  there  is  in  it  of  prosaic  has  been  fused  by 
the  fiery  vigour  and  glowing  enthusiasm  of  the  author  into  the  outward 
semblance  of  poetry,  it  contains  so  much  that  is  tedious  and  obscure 
that  it  cannot  claim  as  high  a  place  among  those  poems  which  are  the 
most  precious  treasure  of  mankind  as  we  should  assign  to  Dante  among 
poets.  We  may  illustrate  what  we  mean  by  again  referring  to  Lucretius  : 
who  as  a  whole  would  place  the  De  Rerum  Naturd  on  a  level  with  the 
jEneid  ?  and  yet  its  author  possessed  a  deeper,  a  richer  vein  of  poetry 
than  that  which  inspired  the  consummate  art  of  Virgil. 

P.    F.    WlLLERT. 

OXFORD. 


Les  sources  et  devolution  des  Essais  de  Montaigne.     Par  PIERRE  VILLEY. 
Paris:  Hachette  et  Cie,  1908.     2  vols.     8vo.     x  +  422  and  576  pp. 

At  the  opening  of  his  great  essay,  On  Repentance,  Montaigne  warns 
us  that  in  the  portraiture  of  himself  he  is  '  not  painting  the  whole  being 
but  a  passing  state,'  that  the  portrait  '  is  a  copy  of  diverse  and  change- 
able accidents  and  of  wavering  and  sometimes  contradictory  imaginations,' 
and  that  '  his  soul  is  always  in  a  state  of  apprenticeship  and  probation.* 

M.  L.  R.  iv.  26 


402  Reviews 

In  spite  of  this  warning  many  attempts  have  been  made  to  construct  out 
of  Montaigne's  Essays  a  well-rounded  system  of  philosophy,  and  their 
author  has  been  variously  represented  as  a  Sceptic,  an  Epicurean,  and 
even  as  a  Stoic.  The  reprint  of  the  edition  of  1580  by  Dezeimeris  and 
Barckhausen  and  of  that  of  1588  by  Motheau  and  Jouaust  has  made 
it  possible  to  study,  with  the  expenditure  of  some  trouble,  the  develop- 
ment of  Montaigne's  thought,  and  recently  the  task  has  been  considerably 
lightened  by  the  publication  of  vol.  I  of  the  Municipal  edition  of  the 
famous  copy  of  the  1588  text,  with  Montaigne's  manuscript  additions 
and  corrections,  which  is  preserved  in  the  municipal  library  of  Bordeaux. 
In  this  edition,  admirably  edited  by  M.  Strowsky,  the  successive  strata 
of  the  essays  are  conveniently  shewn  by  differences  in  type  and  other 
methods.  For  the  fourth  volume  a  study  of  the  Sources  of  the  Essays 
by  M.  Pierre  Villey  is  announced.  Meanwhile  M.  Villey,  who  has  been 
working  at  the  subject  for  the  last  six  years,  gives  us  the  result  of  his 
labours  in  a  complete  form,  that  is  to  say  with  ample  discussion  and 
with  full  references  to  his  sources.  It  may  be  said  at  once  that  no  such 
important  contribution  to  the  study  of  Montaigne  has  been  made  for 
many  years. 

After  fifty  pages  of  introductory  matter  on  the  general  question  of 
Montaigne's  relations  to  the  ethics  of  the  sixteenth  century  we  come 
to  the  First  Part  (i,  pp.  51 — 280)  which  deals  with  the  books  read  by 
Montaigne  and  the  period  at  which  he  read  them.  A  comparison  with 
Miss  Grace  Norton's  admirable  essay,  Montaigne  as  a  reader,  in  her 
Studies  in  Montaigne,  1904,  and  with  her  list  of  authors  read  by  him  will 
shew  how  great  an  advance  M.  Villey  has  made.  I  will  only  note  that 
his  method  is  thoroughly  sound,  and  that  he  carefully  distinguishes 
between  fact  and  hypothesis.  Authors  are  arranged  in  alphabetical 
order,  so  that  reference  is  easy.  Among  the  less  known  is  Ldpez  de 
G6mara,  from  whose  popular  Historia  general  de  las  Indias,  published 
in  1553,  and  translated  into  French  in  1584,  Montaigne  borrowed 
largely. 

The  rest  of  M.  Villey's  first  volume  has  for  its  subject  the  chronology 
of  the  Essays,  and  is  perhaps  the  most  important  part  of  the  whole 
work.  The  result  of  his  investigations  is  that  the  essays  of  Books  I  and 
IT  may  be  arranged  in  four  periods  of  composition  as  follows : 

(1)  1572.     I,  2—22,  26  (part),  31—48,  and  n,  1 ; 

(2)  1573-74.     n,  2—6 ; 

(3)  1575-76.     n,   12  (part),   14,  15  (this  is  in  some  measure 

conjectural) ; 

(4)  1578-80.     i,  1,  25,  27  (end),  28,  53,  and  n,  7,  11,  16— 37  \ 

During  the  last  period  M.  Villey  thinks  important  additions  were  made 
to  I,  20,  and  n,  12,  and  some  other  essays.  There  is  no  indication  of 
date  for  the  remaining  essays  of  Books  i  and  n,  but  M.  Villey  conjectures 

1  I  have  used  the  numbering  of  the  1595  text  for  the  chapters  of  Book  i.  In  the 
earlier  editions  XL  was  numbered  xiv. 


Reviews  403 

that  i,  24,  Du  pedantisme,  was  written  between  1572  and  1578,  and 
I,  49 — 52  soon  after  1572.  With  regard  to  the  essay  which  stands 
first  of  all  he  suggests  that  it  was  written  about  1578  (mainly  on  the 
ground  that  the  example  of  the  emperor  Conrad  comes  from  Bodin's 
Methodus  ad  facilem  historiarum  cognitionem,  which  he  shews  Montaigne 
read  about  that  year),  and  that  Montaigne  purposely  put  it  at  the 
beginning  of  his  book  on  account  of  its  subject,  namely,  the  diversity 
and  inconstancy  of  man.  This  is  very  likely. 

I  have  not  space  here  to  discuss  all  the  careful  arguments  which 
M.  Villey  adduces  for  the  chronology  of  each  essay,  but  one  or  two 
points  call  for  especial  notice.  His  theory,  which  he  only  presents  as 
conjectural,  with  regard  to  the  Apologie  de  Raimond  de  Sebonde  is  that 
it  consists  of  three  principal  fragments,  of  which  the  first  was  written 
about  1573,  the  last  about  1576,  and  the  middle  one,  ending  with  the 
address  to  the  princess,  between  1578  and  1580.  Without  accepting 
this  view  in  its  entirety  one  may  readily  agree  with  that  part  of  it  which 
assigns  the  last  part,  with  its  numerous  borrowings  from  Sextus 
Empiricus,  to  the  neighbourhood  of  the  year  1576.  For  it  was  in 
January  or  February  of  this  year  that  Montaigne  struck  his  Pyrrhoriist 
medal.  With  regard  to  II,  17,  On  Presumption,  an  essay  of  great 
importance,  for  it  is  the  first  one  in  which  he  gives  us  a  full-length 
portrait  of  himself,  I  have  expressed  elsewhere  my  dissent  from 
M.  Bonnefon's  view  that  it  was  written  as  early  as  1573  or  15741,  and 
I  agree  with  M.  Villey  in  assigning  it  on  various  grounds  to  the  period 
1578-1580.  It  is  closely  connected  both  with  the  essay  which  precedes 
it  and  the  one  which  follows  it,  so  that  they  too  probably  belong  to  the 
same  period.  The  chronology  of  the  Third  Book  presents  no  difficulty. 
.  M.  Villey  agrees  with  me  that  Montaigne  did  not  begin  this  Book  till 
at  least  the  close  of  the  year  1585,  and  we  know  that  it  was  completed 
by  February  1588. 

Having  established  these  data  M.  Villey  in  his  second  volume  deals 
with  the  evolution  of  the  Essays,  or  in  other  words  with  the  development 
of  Montaigne's  art  and  thought. 

In  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  there  was  a  class  of  book 
which  had  an  immense  popularity.  It  may  be  said  to  have  begun  with 
Erasmus's  Adagia  (1500)  and  may  be  best  described  in  the  words 
applied  by  Mark  Pattison  to  that  work  as  'a  manual  of  the  art  and 
wisdom  of  the  ancient  world  for  the  use  of  the  modern.'  The  Adagia 
were  aphorisms,  or  as  they  were  then  called  'sentences.'  When  these  were 
put  in  the  mouths  of  great  men  they  were  called  '  Apophthegms.' 
Such  were  the  Apophthegmata  of  Erasmus  and  the  Propos  memorables 
of  the  Paris  bookseller,  Grilles  Corrozet.  Similar  in  character  as  being 
equally  of  a  moral  import  were  the  collections  of 'Examples,'  or  anecdotes, 
such  as  the  De  dictis  etfactis  memoralibus  of  Battista  Fregoso,  and  the 
Officina  of  Ravisius  Textor,  both  of  which  were  largely  used  by  Rabelais. 
Another  work  from  which  Rabelais  drew  was  the  Lectionum  antiquarum. 

1  Montaigne  speaks  of  himself  as  ay  ant  franchi  les  quarante  ans. 

26—2 


404  Reviews 

libri  xvi  of  Coelius  Rhodiginus,  which  combined  aphorism  with  anecdote, 
and  amusement  with  moral  instruction.  A  similar  work,  written  in  the 
vernacular,  was  the  Silva  de  varia  lection  of  Pedro  Mexia  (1542),  of  which 
a  French  translation  was  published  in  1552  under  the  title  of  Les  diverses 
lemons.  Of  the  same  character  were  various  books  which  appeared  not 
long  before  the  Essays,  such  as,  the  Anthologie  of  Pierre  Breslay,  the 
Academie  franpoise  of  La  Primaudaye  (a  work  much  read  in  this 
country),  the  Suite  des  diverses  lemons  de  Pierre  Messie  of  Du  Verdier, 
and  the  highly  popular  Theatre  du  Monde  of  Pierre  Boaistuau. 
Montaigne's  earliest  essays  were,  as  M.  Villey  says,  mere  Lemons,  or,  as 
I  have  described  them,  elsewhere,  'an  anecdote  or  two,  with  a  few 
remarks  by  way  of  moral.'  M.  Villey  gives  as  a  typical  example  I,  xv, 
De  la  punition  de  la  couardise. 

Soon  we  come  upon  another  type  of  essay,  more  fully  developed,  and 
altogether  more  interesting,  but  still  preserving  the  mosaic  character  and 
with  very  little  of  Montaigne  in  it.  Such  are  I,  40  (originally  14),  37,  42 
and  u,  1.  The  first  of  these  M.  Villey  takes  as  a  type  of  the  longer  essay 
of  the  first  period.  As  he  points  out,  its  composition  is  extremely  simple 
and  regular.  It  opens  with  a  saying  of  Epictetus,  which  Montaigne 
found  in  Stobaeus,  that  men  are  tormented  by  their  opinion  of  things, 
and  not  by  the  things  themselves.  Then,  after  two  paragraphs  which 
are  possibly  original,  the  essay  is  built  up  in  a  perfectly  symmetrical 
fashion.  First  we  have  a  few  aphorisms  on  the  contempt  for  death, 
followed  by  numerous  examples.  Then  we  have  a  few  aphorisms  on  the 
contempt  for  pain,  followed  by  more  examples.  Finally  there  is  a  short 
conclusion,  which  is  almost  directly  translated  from  Seneca.  In  this 
group  of  essays  M.  Villey  includes  I,  19,  Que  philosopher  cest  apprendre 
a  mourir,  and  he  is  on  the  whole  right  in  doing  so,  for  much  of  the 
essay  is  borrowed  from  ancient  sources,  especially  from  Lucretius,  and  its 
ideas  hardly  go  beyond  the  range  of  the  great  commonplaces.  But 
from  the  artistic  point  of  view  the  essay  is  significant  as  being  the  first 
(he  was  writing  it  on  March  15,  1572)  in  which  Montaigne  attempts 
a  higher  flight,  in  which  he  writes  as  a  poet  as  well  as  a  moralist, 
in  which  he  introduces  at  any  rate  one  important  personal  element,  his 
imagination. 

During  this  period  the  dominating  influence  is  Stoicism — the 
mitigated  Stoicism  of  Seneca,  whose  ideas  and  even  style  colour  all  the 
early  essays.  This  Stoical  phase  through  which  Montaigne  passed  was 
due  in  part  to  the  influence  of  his  friend  La  Boetie.  It  was  a  Stoicism 
which,  as  M.  Villey  well  points  out,  had  nothing  original  in  it,  and 
nothing  Christian.  Montaigne  gradually  drew  clear  of  it,  but  there 
was  no  violent  rupture,  no  such  hard  and  fast  demarcation  between  the 
Stoical  and  the  Sceptical  phase  as  M.  Strowski  seems  to  imply1. 
Throughout  his  life  Montaigne  could  be  roused  to  enthusiasm  by  the 
contemplation  of  Stoical  ideals.  It  was  the  influence  of  Plutarch  which 
helped  to  wean  him  from  Stoicism.  Amyot's  translation  of  the  Moralia 

1  F.  Strowski,  Montaigne,  1906. 


Reviews  405 

i 

appeared  in  August  1572,  and  M.  Villey  shews  that  Montaigne  must 
have  become  acquainted  with  it  towards  the  close  of  the  year.  We 
know  how  much  he  was  indebted  to  Amyot,  and  even  more  to  the 
(Euvres  morales  than  to  the  Lives.  The  Lives,  M.  Villey  points  out, 
influenced  his  work  in  two  ways;  they  put  more  sap  and  vitality  into 
the  essays,  as  for  instance  I,  22  and  47,  and  they  gave  a  more  complex 
and  subtle  character  to  his  psychology.  He  began  to  realise  that  life 
was  less  simple  than  the  Stoics  represented  it  to  be.  One  of  the  earliest 
essays  to  shew  the  trace  of  the  (Euvres  morales  is  n,  4,  A  demain  les 
affaires,  which  opens  with  the  well-known  tribute  to  Amyot  — Je  donne 
la  palme  a  Jacques  Amyot  sur  touts  noz  escrivains  Francois. 

M.  Villey's  treatment  of  Montaigne's  scepticism,  or,  as  he  calls  it, 
his  relativism,  is  excellent  (u,  pp.  155 — 235).  We  have  the  beginning 
of  it  in  two  essays  of  the  first  period  I,  31  and  47  (De  ^incertitude  de 
nostre  jugement),  and  no  doubt  the  religious  wars,  especially  after  the 
massacre  of  St  Bartholomew,  contributed  greatly  to  its  development. 
But  the  crisis  was  determined  by  Henri  Estienne's  Latin  translation  of 
Sextus  Empiricus  (1562).  It  was  from  Sextus  that  he  derived  most  of 
the  inscriptions  for  his  library  and  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the 
medal  which  he  struck  early  in  1576  gives  us  approximately  the  date 
of  the  crisis.  M.  Strowski  says  that  the  most  important  source  of  the 
Apologie  de  Raintond  de  Sebonde  is  the  Examen  vanitatis  doctrinae 
gentium  of  Giovanni  Francesco  Pico  della  Mirandola,  a  nephew  of  the 
great  humanist  (p.  125),  but  M.  Villey  can  find  no  direct  traces  of  this 
work  in  Montaigne.  As  regards  the  well-known  treatise  of  Cornelius 
Agrippa,  De  incertitudine  et  vanitate  scientiarum,  he  points  out  that 
Montaigne  is  indebted  to  it  for  puerile  paradox  rather  than  for  serious 
argument,  and  that  it  is  in  fact  to  be  regarded  as  an  amusing  manual 
of  paradoxes,  or  at  best  as  '  an  ironical  pamphlet  against  stupidity ' 
(Strowski),  rather  than  as  a  serious  contribution  to  sceptical  philosophy1. 
Another  source,  to  which  M.  Villey  for  the  first  time  calls  attention,  is 
Les  Dialogues  de  Guy  de  Brues,  contre  les  nouveauac  Academiciens  (1557), 
an  obscure  and  feeble  work  by  a  friend  of  Ronsard.  '  The  great  novelty 
of  the  Apology  and  its  governing  thought  is  that  we  have  "no 
communication  with  Being,"  and  that  we  only  know  changing  phe- 
nomena.' This  is  one  of  the  best  and  most  informing  remarks  that 
has  ever  been  made  on  the  Apology.  Though  the  acute  sceptical 
phase  which  is  represented  by  this  essay  passed  away,  '  it  left  behind 
it/  notes  M.  Villey,  '  two  important  traces,  a  great  intellectual  prudence 
and  the  principle  of  the  imitation  of  nature.'  To  Montaigne's  philosophy 
of  Nature  he  devotes  a  whole  chapter  (pp.  375 — 436),  but  the  subject 
is  far  too  large  a  one  to  be  discussed  here.  By  '  intellectual  prudence ' 
he  means  that  Montaigne  henceforth  abandoned  hasty  moral  general- 
isations in  favour  of  the  more  modest  position  that  morality  is  to 
a  large  extent  relative  to  the  age  and  to  the  individual. 

It  will   have  been  noticed  that  in  M.  Villey's  chronology  of  the 

1  The  French  translation  of  Agrippa  is  by  Louis  Turquet,  and  not  by  Gueudeville,  as 
M.  Strowski  says. 


406  Reviews 

Essays  all  that  he  assigns,  and  that  conjecturally,  to  the  period  from 
1574  to  the  end  of  1577  are  part  of  the  Apology,  and  two  short 
essays,  also  of  a  sceptical  character,  II,  14  and  15.  But  he  points  out 
(i,  387)  that  to  this  period  may  also  belong  the  essays  which  were  stolen 
from  Montaigne  by  his  secretary,  as  well  as  some  of  those  which  have 
no  indication  of  date.  He  further  suggests  that  during  this  period  his 
work  was  interrupted  by  the  fact  that  he  was  serving  in  the  army.  It 
seems  to  me,  however,  extremely  unlikely  that  after  St  Bartholomew 
Montaigne  should  have  served  on  the  Catholic  side,  and  equally  unlikely 
that  he  should  have  thrown  in  his  lot,  as  has  also  been  conjectured,  with 
the  Protestants.  It  is  far  easier  to  agree  with  M.  Villey  when  he  makes 
Montaigne's  conception  of  the  relativity  of  morality  the  starting-point 
for  his  portraiture  of  himself.  Among  other  influences  he,  notices  the 
growing  interest  of  the  age  in  biography  and  autobiography,  and 
Montaigne's  own  predilection  for  Plutarch,  Suetonius,  and  Horace. 
On  the  influence  of  Horace  M.  Villey  is  especially  good  (pp.  141 — 145). 
The  resemblance  between  the  two  men  is  indeed  remarkable ;  they 
belong  to  the  same  family,  a  family  of  which  Sainte-Beuve,  who 
claimed  them  and  Bayle  as  his  masters,  was  also  an  illustrious  member. 

It  is  in  the  essays  written  during  the  last  period  of  the  First  Book 
(1578 — 80)  that  Montaigne's  design  of  making  himself  the  subject  of 
his  book  appears  fully  matured.  In  II,  6  On  Practice,  written  at  the 
latest  in  1574,  we  already  find  a  premonition  of  his  intention.  'I  am 
not  writing  as  a  teacher,  but  as  a  student :  it  is  not  another  man's 
lesson,  it  is  my  own,'  are  the  concluding  words  of  the  essay  in  the  1580 
edition.  But  it  is  not  till  I,  25  On  the  Education  of  Children,  n,  8  On 
the  affection  of  Fathers  for  Children,  II,  10  On  Books,  that  he  begins  to 
put  his  design  into  execution,  and  it  is  not  till  II,  17  On  Presumption, 
that  he  gives  free  play  to  it.  But  it  is  in  the  Third  Book  and  in  the 
additions  made  to  the  earlier  books  that  we  get  the  full  benefit  of  his 
intention.  During  the  years  1586 — 88  he  finds  an  inexhaustible  theme 
in  his  personal  experiences,  his  personal  tastes  and  opinions,  and  he 
produces  his  richest  and  most  original  essays.  I  cannot  agree  with 
M.  Villey  that  he  tells  us  too  much  about  his  idiosyncrasies.  It  is 
interesting  to  know  that  he  never  had  his  bed  warmed,  that  he  did  not 
care  for  fruit  except  melons,  that  he  liked  all  sauces  and  preferred 
stinking  fish  to  fresh.  Montaigne'  did  not  write  only  for  philosophers 
but  for  the  world  in  general.  That  is  one  of  the  secrets  of  his  abiding 
charm. 

In  the  additions  which  Montaigne  made  to  the  Essays  during  the 
last  years  of  his  life,  and  which  were  embodied  in  the  posthumous 
edition  of  1595,  his  confidences  are,  in  truth,  sometimes  indiscreet,  and 
M.  Villey  is  right  in  saying  that  an  increasing  libertinism  is  a  note  of 
these  years.  But  he  is  equally  right  in  ascribing  this  to  an  excess  of 
frankness,  with  a  spice  of  affectation,  and  not  to  senility  or  dilettantism. 
M.  Strowski's  view  that  dilettantism  is  the  final  word  of  Montaigne's 
philosophy  is  not  borne  out,  as  he  supposes,  by  the  character  of  the 
books  which  he  read  during  his  last  years.  On  the  contrary  Montaigne 


Reviews  407 

read  more  assiduously  and  more  methodically  than  before,  and  the 
books  that  he  read  were  for  the  most  part  of  an  extremely  solid 
character.  Aristotle's  Ethics,  Plato,  Diogenes  Laertius,  Xenophon's 
Anabasis,  Herodotus,  Livy,  Quintilian,  Cicero's  Academica,  de  natura 
deorum,  and  de  divinatione  are  not  the  books  of  a  dilettante.  The 
manuscript  additions  to  the  Bordeaux  copy  of  the  edition  of  1588 
bear  ample  testimony  to  Montaigne's  reading.  It  is  this  rather  than 
any  fresh  intellectual  current  that  colours  his  writing  from  1588  to 
his  death. 

There  are  many  other  points  in  M.  Villey's  book  that  I  should  like 
to  have  noticed,  such  as  the  influence  of  the  conteurs  and  of  Seneca  on 
Montaigne's  style  (n,  299  and  538),  his  increasing  love  of  brevity  (n,  542), 
and  his  debt  to  Amyot  for  some  of  his  metaphors  (n,  302).  M.  Villey 
writes  with  judgment  and  penetration  of  his  religion,  saying  of  it  that 
its  distinctive  character  is  the  absence  of  all  religious  feeling  (II,  323 — 
335),  and  there  is  an  interesting  chapter  on  Montaigne  honnete  homme 
(ll,  436 — 490),  at  the  close  of  which  he  compares  him  in  this  character 
to  La  Rochefoucauld.  He  might  have  added  that  he  was  the  favourite 
author  of  Mme  de  Sable,  in  whose  salon  La  Rochefoucauld's  Maxims 
were  shaped  and  polished.  Finally,  one  word  by  way  of  general 
criticism.  M.  Villey's  book  is  admirable  in  substance,  independent, 
cautious,  thorough  ;  but  in  point  of  form  it  is  somewhat  diffuse.  There 
is  a  certain  amount  of  repetition.  Had  the  work  been  subjected  to  a 
more  careful  condensing  and  refining  process,  it  would  have  been  more 
effective  as  a  whole,  easier  to  grasp,  more  striking  in  its  impression. 
In  these  days  of  many  books,  a  thousand  pages  make  a  severe  demand 
on  the  reader,  even  when  the  subject  is  Montaigne. 

ARTHUR  TILLEY. 

CAMBRIDGE. 


Henslowes  Diary.  Edited  by  WALTER  W.  GREG.  Part  I,  Text. 
Part  II,  Commentary.  London:  A.  H.  Bullen.  1904,  1908. 
Crown  4to.  lii  +  240  and  xvi  +  400  pp. 

Mr  Greg's  work  upon  Henslowe  is  a  most  notable  contribution 
towards  the  redemption  of  the  history  of  the  Elizabethan  stage  for 
scholarship  from  the  disrepute  into  which  the  tricks  of  the  forger  and 
the  impertinence  of  the  sciolist  have  brought  it.  He  has  now 
furnished  a  minutely  accurate  text  of  the  famous  diary,  a  collection, 
separately  issued  under  the  title  Henslowe  Papers  (1907),  of  illustrative 
documents  from  the  Dulwich  archives,  and  a  volume  of  elaborate 
commentary,  in  which  are  discussed  in  turn  the  personality  and 
fortunes  of  Philip  Henslowe  himself,  the  companies  of  actors  and  the 
theatres  with  which  his  dramatic  speculations  were  involved,  and  the 
individual  plays  and  men,  for  so  many  of  whom  a  reference  in  his 
business-like  pages  has  secured  a  somewhat  surprising  rescue  from 
oblivion.  It  is  not  necessary,  in  the  Modern  Language  Review,  to 


408  Reviews 

dwell-  either  upon  the  lirst-rate  importance  of  the  Dulwich  manuscripts 
to  the  student  of  Elizabethan  life  in  general  and  of  the  Elizabethan 
drama  in  particular,  or  upon  the  exceptional  merits  of  their  latest 
editor.  Mr  Greg's  sound  judgment  and  remorseless  patience  are  by 
this  time  familiar  even  to  those  who  have  not,  like  myself,  had  the 
privilege  of  working  with  him.  I  shall  best  discharge  my  present 
duty  by  avoiding  all  attempt  at  giving  a  summary  of  his  book,  and 
confining  myself  to  a  few  isolated  points  of  controversy,  as  to  which,  in 
the  interpretation  of  admittedly  intricate  and  difficult  evidence,  I  feel 
bound  to  interpret  otherwise.  I  am  but  gleaning  where  Mr  Greg  has 
reaped,  and  must  pass  over  page  after  page  upon  which  I  have  nothing 
to  express  but  the  most  complete  assent  and  admiration. 

Mr  Greg  has  dealt  fully  and  finally  with  the  forgeries  introduced  by 
Collier  into  the  Diary  itself,  and  in  his  general  handling  of  stage 
history  has  steered  very  clear  of  the  pitfalls  dug  for  his  successors  by 
that  mischievous  antiquary.  I  have  only  noted  one  passage  where 
I  suspect  that  he  has  himself  been  trapped.  This  is  in  a  statement 
(n,  108)  that  the  actor  William  Kempe  '  is  found  with  the  Queen's 
Revels'  company  in  1605.'  There  is  an  a  priori  improbability  about 
this,  because  the  Queen's  Revels  was  a  company  of  boys.  I  suppose 
that  Mr  Greg  rests  it  upon  a  '  memorandum '  quoted  by  Collier  in  his 
Memoirs  of  the  Actors  as  'derived  from  the  civic  archives'  for  1605,  to 
the  effect  that  '  Kempe,  Armyn,  and  others,  plaiers  at  the  Blacke 
Fryers '  had  brought  certain  aldermen  of  the  City  upon  the  stage. 
There  is  nothing  else  to  connect  either  Kempe  or  Armin  with  the 
Blackfriars  in  1605.  Collier  does  not,  of  course,  give  an  exact  reference. 
I  like  not  the  security,  and  my  suspicions  are  confirmed  by  turning  up 
Mr  Sidney  Lee's  account  of  Kempe  in  the  D.N.B.,  and  finding  that  '  the 
town  clerk  of  London  denies  the  existence  of  such  a  document.' 

On  the  other  hand  the  recent  German  theory  that  the  mysterious 
ne's  attached  to  certain  records  of  play-performances  in  the  diary  are  to 
be  ascribed  to  Collier  is  reprobated  on  palaeographical  grounds  by 
Mr  Greg.  There  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that,  whatever  the  exact 
significance  of  these  letters  may  be — '  ne[w],'  or  '  n[ew]  e[nterlude],'  or 
what-not — they  indicate  what  we  should  now  call  a  '  first  night,'  either  of 
a  wholly  new  play,  or  perhaps  in  some  instances  of  a  '  revival.'  But 
I  part  company  from  Mr  Greg  when  he  assigns  (n,  167,  174)  the  same 
meaning  to  the  sign  'j,'  which  appears  against  the  performance  of 
Tamberlaine  on  30  August  1594,  and  that  of  Long  Meg  of  Westminster 
on  14  February  1595.  The  alternative  explanation,  which  indeed 
Mr  Greg  himself  suggests,  that  it  indicated  the  First  Part  of  a  play 
written  in  two  parts,  seems  to  me  far  more  plausible.  There  was  a  ne 
on  27  August  1594  and  there  was  a  ne  on  11  February  1595,  and 
Mr  Greg's  theory  would  make  these  two  occasions  the  only  ones  on 
which  two  new  plays  in  the  same  week  are  recorded  in  the  diary. 
Moreover,  on  10  March  1595,  Henslowe  notes  '  17  p  frome  hence 
lycensed.'  Now,  if  Tamberlaine  and  Long  Meg  of  Westminster  are  left 
out  of  account,  the  Admiral's  men  had  produced  exactly  17  new  plays, 


Reviews  409 

since  they  began  with  Bellendon  on  8  June  1594.  Mr  Greg  (n,  115) 
explains  this  note  rather  differently,  as  referring  to  '  exactly  the  number 
of  the  plays  in  the  repertory  at  the  moment,  that  is,  of  the  plays  entered 
as  performed  by  the  Admiral's  men  both  before  and  after  the  date  in 
question ' ;  but  I  think  that  my  interpretation  is  the  more  simple  and 
natural  one. 

Mr  Greg  has  devoted  great  pains  and  ingenuity  to  the  disentangling 
of  Henslowe's  bookkeeping,  and  I  think  that  his  conclusions  are  some- 
times right.  I  am  not  sure,  however,  that  he  has  solved  the  financial 
crux  presented  by  the  accounts  of  1597,  in  which  Henslowe  makes  not 
a  single  but  a  double  money  entry  against  each  performance.  I  agree 
with  him  that  the  first  two  money  columns  represent  pounds  and 
shillings,  and  the  last  three  pounds,  shillings  and  pence,  and  that  the 
pounds  and  shillings  continue  the  series  of  gallery  takings  recorded  in 
other  parts  of  the  book.  But  it  seems  to  me  very  doubtful  whether  the 
pounds,  shillings  and  pence  can,  as  Mr  Greg  suggests  (n,  131), '  represent 
the  sums  which  Henslowe  was  able  every  now  and  then  to  squeeze  out 
of  the  company  towards  the  repayment  of  the  moneys  advanced '  by  him 
on  the  company's  behalf.  There  are  several  difficulties  in  this  ex- 
planation. One  is  that  such  repayments,  when  they  do  occur  in  the 
diary,  are  stated,  as  one  would  expect,  in  round  sums  of  pounds  and 
shillings  without  pence.  Another  is  that  repayments  squeezed  out  from 
day  to  day  would  naturally  fluctuate  with  the  success  of  the  theatre  and 
therefore  with  the  amounts  taken  in  gallery-money.  There  is  no  such 
relation  here.  The  entries  in  question  do  fluctuate,  but  quite  indepen- 
dently of  the  gallery-money.  Moreover,  it  is  noticeable  that  nearly 
half  the  total  amounts  which  they  represent  falls  within  the  first  24 
of  the  127  days  for  which  this  particular  account  runs.  Both  this 
unequal  distribution  and  the  inclusion  of  pence  suggest  outgoings 
rather  than  repayments,  and  on  the  whole  it  seems  to  me  probable  that 
Henslowe  is  entering  side  by  side  with  his  gallery-receipts,  not  the 
repayments  of  his  advances  for  the  company,  but  the  advances  them- 
selves as  he  made  them  day  by  day.  But  I  admit  that,  if  so,  there  are 
duplicate  and  differing  entries  of  payments  on  another  page  for  two  of 
the  days  in  question  which  I  have  no  means  of  explaining.  When 
Mr  Greg  comes  (n,  135)  to  summarize  the  total  outcome  of  Henslowe's 
financial  transactions  with  the  Admiral's  men  from  1597  to  1604,  I  feel 
sure  that  he  goes  wrong  at  more  than  one  point.  For  example, 
Henslowe  did  not,  as  he  suggests,  credit  the  company  on  28  July  1598 
with  receipts  up  to  date  of  £125  as  against  payments  of  £167.  2s.  7d. 
and  carry  forward  a  balance  in  his  own  favour  of  £42.  2s.  7d:  Probably 
the  £125  went  to  an  old  debt.  In  any  case  Henslowe  carried  forward 
the  whole  of  the  £167.  2s.  7d.  against  the  company.  This  correction 
makes  the  entry  of  £233.  17s.  7d  as  due  to  Henslowe  on  24  February 
1599,  which  puzzles  Mr  Greg,  intelligible  enough.  Henslowe  has 
corrected  an  error  of  5s.  in  his  previous  statement  of  his  advances 
for  1597-8,  making  it  £166.  17s.  7d.  He  has  added  his  further 
advances  of  £314.  3s.  Od.  up  to  16  February  1599,  and  has  deducted 


410  Reviews 

his  actual  receipts  during  1598-9  up  to  24  February,  amounting  to 
£247.  3s.  Qd.  The  balance  in  his  favour  is  in  fact  £233. 17 s.  7d.  These 
are  not  the  only  misunderstandings  in  Mr  Greg's  paragraph,  which  really 
requires  a  complete  reconsideration. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  turn  from  finance  to  the  personalities  of  famous 
men.  Edward  Alleyn,  the  Roscius  of  the  Elizabethan  stage,  is  recorded 
in  the  diary  to  have  '  leafte  playnge '  some  time  before  29  December 
1597.  Mr  Greg  regards  this  as  a  very  temporary  retirement,  and 
thinks  that  Alleyn  was  back  on  the  boards  in  1598.  I  think,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  he  did  not  return  until  1600.  Mr  Greg  relies  on  the 
appearance  of  Alleyn's  name  in  the  plot  of  The  Battle  of  Alcazar,  which 
he  dates  in  1598.  To  this  I  reply  that  the  plot  may  belong  to 
December  1597,  and  may  be  as  late  as  1601  or  thereabouts.  I  think 
it  is  in  favour  of  my  view  that  on  26  September  1598  Alleyn  was  at 
The  Brill  in  Sussex,  and  that  Henslowe,  writing  to  him  there  (Henslowe 
Papers,  48),  talks  of  'my  company,'  as  if  Alleyn  were  not  directly 
concerned  with  it.  But  my  strongest  argument  rests  on  the  terms  of 
a  letter  written  by  the  Privy  Council  to  the  Middlesex  Justices  on 
8  April  1600,  to  favour  the  building  of  the  Fortune  (Henslowe  Papers, 
51).  This  letter  recites  that  'her  Matie  (haveinge  been  well  pleased 
heeretofere  at  tymes  of  recreacon  wth  the  services  of  Edward  Allen  and 
his  Companie ;  Servantf  to  me  the  Earle  of  Nottingham  wheareof,  of 
late  he  hath  made  discontynuance)  Hath  sondrye  tymes  signified  her 
pleasuer,  that  he  should  revive  the  same  agayne.'  Mr  Greg  finds  the 
phrasing  odd,  because  there  had  been  no  cessation  of  activity  at  the 
Rose,  and  the  Admiral's  men  had  duly  appeared  at  court  during  the 
Christmas  of  1599-1600.  But  surely  the  point  is  that  Alleyn  was  not 
with  them  in  person. 

Collier  interpolated  in  the  diary  three  forged  entries  concerning 
the  unfortunate  play  of  The  Isle  of  Dogs,  which  led  to  the  closing 
of  the  theatres  in  1597.  Mr  Greg  clears  these  away  and  leaves  a  single 
genuine  mention  of  the  play.  This  occurs  in  a  note  of  an  agreement 
between  Henslowe  and  the  actor  William  Borne  on  10  August  1597, 
under  which  Borne  binds  himself  to  begin  playing  at  the  Rose 
'  Imediatly  after  this  Restraynt  is  Recaled  by  the  lordes  of  the  cownsell 
wch  Restraynt  is  by  the  meanes  of  playinge  the  leylle  of  dooges/ 
Mr  Greg  suggests  that  possibly  the  performance  of  The  Isle  of  Dogs 
took  place  on  20  July.  This  date  is  entered  by  Henslowe  in  the  diary, 
but  no  play-name  or  receipt  is  entered  against  it.  Having  eliminated 
the  forgeries,  however,  Mr  Greg  leaves  himself  with  no  proof  that  the 
play  was  produced  by  the  Admiral's  men  at  all.  Collier's  well-known 
extract  from  the  Privy  Council  register,  which  records  the  imprisonment 
of  some  of  the  players,  '  whereof  one  of  them  was  not  only  an  actor,  but 
a  maker  of  parte  of  the  said  plaie,'  only  describes  it  as  '  plaied  in  one 
of  the  plaiehowses  on  the  Bancke  side ' ;  and  this  might  have  been  the 
Swan.  That  Nash  had  a  share  in  the  composition  may  be  regarded  as 
established,  but  there  is  no  trace  of  any  other  connection  between  Nash 
and  Henslowe.  I  am  fortunate  enough  to  be  able  to  produce  some 


Reviews  411 

further  evidence  on  the  matter  which,  as  far  as  I  know,  has  never  been 
used.  On  8  October,  1597,  the  Privy  Council  (Acts,  xxviii.  33)  issued 
two  warrants  to  the  keeper  of  the  Marshalsea,  one  '  to  release  Gabriell 
Spencer  and  Robert  Shaa,  stage-players,  out  of  prison,  who  were  of  lat 
comitted  to  his  custodie,'  and  the  other  'a  like  warrant  for  the  releasing 
of  Benjamin  Johnson.'  The  important  new  fact  here  is,  of  course,  the 
inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  two  entries  in  the  register  taken 
together,  that  Ben  Jonson  and  not,  as  Mr  Greg  guesses,  Samuel  Rowley 
or  Thomas  Heywood,  was  Nash's  collaborator  in  The  Isle  of  Dogs.  Of 
this  there  is  no  hint  either  in  Prof.  Herford's  D.  N.  B.  article,  or  in  the 
quite  recent  and  Gargantuan  biography  by  M.  Maurice  Castelain.  But 
I  think  that  doubt  is  also  thrown  upon  the  responsibility  of  Henslowe 
and  the  Admiral's  men  for  the  offending  performance.  The  warrants 
were  issued  three  days  before  Shaw  and  Spencer  began  to  play  for 
Henslowe  in  a  reconstructed  Admiral's  company,  to  which  recruits  from 
Pembroke's  men  had  been  added.  This  is  the  earliest  appearance  of 
Spencer  in  the  diary.  The  earliest  appearance  of  Shaw  is  on  the 
previous  6  August,  when  Richard  Jones  became  security  to  a  covenant 
by  him  to  play  for  Henslowe.  The  procedure  is,  no  doubt,  explained 
by  his  imprisonment.  Mr  Greg  has  an  ingenious  argument  to  prove 
that  Spencer,  at  least,  was  one  of  the  importations  from  Pembroke's 
men;  and  if  so,  it  would  seem  at  least  possible  that  Pembroke's,  rather 
than  the  Admiral's,  were  the  producers  of  The  Isle  of  Dogs,  and  thereby 
caused  the  general  restraint  of  all  theatres  on  28  July,  1597.  On  the 
other  hand,  Ben  Jonson  was  in  financial  relationship  with  Henslowe  as 
early  as  28  July,  for  on  that  very  day  he  borrowed  £5  of  him,  perhaps 
to  meet  the  expenses  of  his  arrest;  and  it  is  conceivable  that  the 
Pembroke's  men  came  into  the  Admiral's  company  a  few  months  earlier 
than  could  be  inferred  from  the  account-heading  of  11  October. 

Shakespeare,  like  Nash,  is  not  mentioned  in  the  diary.  Mr  Greg's 
argument  to  prove  that  Gabriel  Spencer  and  Humphrey  Jeffes  joined 
the  Admiral's  men  from  Pembroke's  in  1597  is  based  upon  the 
occurrence  of  the  names  '  Humfrey '  and  '  Gabriel,'  probably  as  those 
of  actors,  in  3  Henry  VI  as  printed  in  the  Folio  of  1623,  and  upon 
the  publication  of  an  earlier  version  of  3  Henri/  VI  with  the  name  of 
Pembroke's  men  on  its  title-page  in  1595.  But  the  inference  that 
Shakespeare  had  once  been  with  Pembroke's  company,  which  he 
regards  as  '  quite  groundless,'  seems  to  me,  on  the  other  hand,  rather 
plausible.  The  only  reasonable  explanation  of  the  appearance  of 
3  Henry  VI  in  the  Folio  is  that  Shakespeare,  if  he  did  not  write  it, 
at  any  rate  revised  it,  and  if  Pembroke's  men  played  in  the  revised 
version,  there  is  at  least  a  fair  probability  that  it  was  revised  for  them. 
Now  there  is  no  trace  of  the  existence  of  Pembroke's  men  until  1592,  in 
the  winter  of  which  year  they  appeared  at  court.  It  is  true  that 
Mr  Fleay  has  narrated  a  whole  history  of  the  company  between  1589 
and  1592,  but  it  rests  upon  nothing.  In  1593  they  travelled,  and  by 
August  they  were  back  in  London  and  had  had  to  sell  their  apparel. 
My  conjecture  is  that  they  may  have  originated  in  1592,  out  of 


412  Reviews 

a  division  for  travelling  purposes  of  the  rather  inflated  London  company 
which  had  been  formed  by  the  combination  of  Strange's  and  the 
Admiral's.  If  so,  they  probably  took  over  the  York  and  Lancaster 
series  of  plays,  including  1  Henry  VI  as  written  or  revised  by 
Shakespeare  for  Strange's  and  produced  at  the  Rose  on  3  March  1592, 
and  also  the  two  parts  of  The  Contention  of  York  and  Lancaster.  These 
Shakespeare  may  have  revised  for  them  and  may  also  have  completed 
by  the  addition  of  Richard  III,  during  their  London  winter  of  1592-3. 

I  see  no  reason  why  he  should  not  also  have  continued  to  write  for 
Strange's,  and  in  fact  I  suspect  that  '  the  gelyous  comodey,'  which  is 
entered  in  the  diary  as  a  new  play  on  5  January  1593,  was  The  Comedy 
of  Errors.      I   do    not    know   that    Shakespeare    travelled   with   any 
company  during  1593;  he  may  have  been  in  Italy.     But  if  he  did,  it 
is   more   likely  to  have  been  with  Pembroke's  than  with  Strange's. 
The  names  of  nine  of  Strange's  men  during  this  tour  are  upon  record, 
and  his  is  not  one  of  them.     In  August  Pembroke's  were  in  difficulties 
and,   as   Mr   Greg    suggests,   probably   sold    their    books    as   well   as 
their  apparel.     Title-pages   show  that,  in  addition  to  the  York  and 
Lancaster  plays,  they  held  Titus  Andronicus,  probably  in  the  version 
produced  for  the  first  time  as  Titus  and   Vespasian  by  Strange's  on 

II  April  1592,  and  The  Taming  of  A  Shrew.     If  so,  they  must  have 
taken  over  the  former  play  from  Strange's,  not  in  1592  but  in  1593,  as 
Strange's  were  playing  it  up  to  25  January  1593.     Mr  Greg  (II,  85) 
supposes  that  in  the  autumn  of  1593  their  stock  was  acquired  by 
Strange's  and  so  passed  to  the  Chamberlain's  men.     But  it  is  also 
possible  that  it  was  taken  over  by  Sussex's  and  passed  from  them  to 
the  Chamberlain's  in  the  summer  of  1594.     This  I  infer  from  the  fact 
that  on  23  January  1594  Sussex's  produced  Titus  Andronicus,  which  I 
take  to  be  Shakespeare's  extant  revision  of  Titus  and   Vespasian,  as 
a  new  play  for  Henslowe.     A  few  days  later,  on  6  February  1594,  plays 
were  stopped  by  the  plague,  and  on  the  very  same  day  Titus  Andronicus 
was  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register.     It  was  published  in  the  course 
of  the  year,  and  its  title-page  bore  the  names  of  the  three  companies, 
Derby's  (i.e.  Strange's),  Pembroke's  and  Sussex's,  in  the  precise  order  in 
which,  according  to  my  view  but  not  according  to  Mr  Greg's,  who  does 
not  accept  Titus  and  Vespasian  as  an  early  version  of  Titus  Andronicus, 
they  had  been  connected  with  it.     I  have  been  prolix  in  expounding 
this  conjecture  as  to  the  outline  of  Shakespeare's  career  from  1592  to 
1594,  because    it   differs    so    sharply  from    the    traditional   conjecture 
adopted  by  Mr  Greg,  according  to  which  Shakespeare's  relations  were 
confined,  at  any  rate  from  1592  onwards,  to  a  single  company,  known  up 
to  1594  as  Strange's,  and  afterwards  as  the  Chamberlain's.    While  I  arn 
conjecturing,  I  may  as  well  go  the  whole  hog,  and  add  that  I  have 
sometimes  wondered  whether  the  Buckingham,  which  Sussex's  were 
playing  in  the  winter  of  1593-4,  was  not  an  early  version  of  Henry  VIII. 
The  Shakespeare  and  Fletcher  play  of  1613  reads  to  me  like  a  rehandling 
of  a  piece  belonging  to  the  days  of  the  chronicle  history. 

I  could  go  on  raising  minor  controversies  with  Mr  Greg  for  some 


Reviews  413 

time  yet.  I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  distinction  he  draws  between  the 
sharers  in  the  Admiral's  company  and  Henslowe's  covenant  servants ;  or 
with  his  theory  that  the  diary  must  not  be  looked  upon  as  showing  all 
the  payments  made  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  Admiral's  men  for  plays 
during  the  period  to  which  it  relates.  But  the  evidence  on  both  these 
points  is  too  long  for  analysis  in  a  review,  and  I  would  rather  end, 
as  I  began,  on  a  note  of  gratitude  to  Mr  Greg  for  a  book  which  few 
scholars  would  have  had  the  energy  to  undertake  or  to  carry  through 
with  so  much  thoroughness  and  minuteness. 

E.  K.  CHAMBERS. 
LONDON. 


The  New  Inn  or  The  Light  Heart.  By  BEN  JONSON.  Edited  by 
G.  B.  TENNANT.  (Yale  Studies  in  English,  xxxiv.)  New  York : 
Henry  Holt,  1908.  8vo.  lxxiii  +  340  pp. 

After  alluding  to  the  fact  that  this  play  is  not  found  in  the  additional 
Jonson  folio  of  1640,  Dr  Tennant  continues :  '  That  the  reason  for  its 
omission  lay  in  its  peculiarity  of  form  [Svo.J  is  very  evident ;  for 
whereas  his  other  plays  could  be  reprinted  from  their  original  type,  and 
then  bound  together,  this  comedy  would  have  needed  to  be  entirely 
reset.'  It  is  difficult  at  first  to  grasp  the  state  of  mind  in  which  an 
editor  makes  a  remark  of  this  sort,  and  yet  when  one  comes  to  look 
into  the  case  it  is  pretty  clear  how  the  mistake  arose.  The  Neiv  Inn 
was  printed  in  octavo  in  1631,  and  it  will  be  remembered  that  the  same 
date  occurs  on  the  title-pages  of  the  first  three  plays  in  1640  folio. 
Dr  Tennant  has  obviously  jumped  at  the  conclusion  that  these  plays 
were  published  in  folio  in  1631,  that  the  type  was  kept  standing  for 
nine  or  ten  years  and  was  then  used  for  printing  the  first  section  of  the 
collected  edition.  Had  this  been  the  case  it  is  pretty  certain  that  the 
printer  of  that  edition  would  have  altered  the  date  before  reprinting 
from  the  old  type.  But  the  supposition  of  type  standing  for  ten  years 
is  utterly  inadmissible.  The  three  plays  in  question  were  of  course 
printed  in  1631  and  the  type  distributed.  They  were  not  intended  for 
separate  issue,  for  the  signatures  are  connected.  It  is  now  usual  to 
assume  that  Jonson  began  to  collect  his  later  works  for  an  additional 
folio  about  1631,  and  that  these  three  plays  were  printed  before  he 
again  dropt  the  scheme.  Whether  any  copies  were  issued  is  not  known, 
but  the  bulk  of  the  edition  certainly  came  into  the  hands  of  the  publisher 
of  the  second  volume  of  1640  (Richard  Meighen).  There  was  no  question 
of  including  in  the  volume  editions  of  plays  which  had  been  put  on  the 
market  singly  at  an  earlier  date ;  while  the  fact  that  the  New  Inn  had 
been  already  printed  in  octavo  cannot  have  stood  in  the  way  of  its  being 
reprinted,  since  several  masques  are  included  of  which  individual  quartos 
had  previously  appeared.  Probably  the  play  was  simply  overlooked; 
unless,  indeed,  we  are  to  suppose  that  Sir  Kenelm  Digby,  the  editor, 
preferred  to  ignore  Ben's  failure  and  the  splenetic  outpourings  that 
followed  it. 


414  Reviews 

A  few  pages  later  we  find  Dr  Tennant  in  difficulties  over  the  date 
1629  given  on  the  title-page  as  that  of  performance.  The  difficulty 
appears  to  be  that  the  date  is  correct.  The  play  was  acted  on  January 
19,  1629.  Dr  Tennant  seems  to  think  that,  being  before  March  25, 
this  should  have  been  given  in  the  original  as  1628.  He  ought,  how- 
ever, to  have  known  that  the  practice  varied  greatly  at  the  time,  and  if 
he  will  turn  to  Prof.  Thorndike's  useful  study  of  the  Influence  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Shakspere  (p.  17)  he  will  find  conclusive 
evidence  that  Jonson  began  the  year  on  January  1. 

After  this  there  is  very  little  to  find  fault  with  in  what  is  throughout 
an  altogether  solid  and  able  piece  of  work.  I  am  afraid  that  the  editor 
is  only  too  right  when  he  says  that  Jonson  had  nobody  but  himself  to 
blame  for  the  failure  of  a  play  which  deserved  no  better,  and,  moreover, 
that  though  the  work  may  not  be  comparable  with  the  author's  great 
pieces,  it  by  no  means  stands  apart  from  the  rest  of  his  production,  but 
merely  shows  in  an  aggravated  form  defects  which  may  be  traced 
throughout.  A  minor  point  is  the  curious  assertion  that  the  play  was 
hissed  '  Because  the  Chambermaid  was  named  Cis.'  When  we  consider 
that  in  revising  the  play  Jonson  not  only  altered  the  name  to  Pru,  but 
picked  out  this  single  incident  as  the  subject  for  an  epilogue  for  the 
court,  I  think  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  name  must  have  borne  some 
suggestion  to  a  contemporary  audience  which  is  lost  to  us.  While, 
however,  disagreeing  with  the  editor  on  this  point,  I  have  no  explana- 
tion to  offer.  Throughout  his  criticism  of  the  play,  and  also  his 
remarks  upon  the  atrabilious  writings  with  which  the  author  followed 
it  up,  Dr  Tennant  has  ample  opportunity  of  exposing  the  utter  per- 
version of  evidence  of  which  Gifford  was  guilty  in  his  not  ungenerous 
defence  of  Jonson,  and  of  the  meekness  with  which  he  has  been  followed 
by  writers  who  should  have  known  better.  Among  other  things 
Dr  Tennant  shows,  I  think,  that  the  version  of  the  Ode  containing  the 
ill-natured  sneer  at  Brome  is  the  original.  On  this  point  the  late 
F.  G.  Fleay  evinced  more  sense  than  other  critics  though  he  proved 
himself  erratic  enough  elsewhere. 

One  episode  in  the  New  Inn  is  also  found  in  the  Widow,  from  which 
the  editor  assumes  that  it  was  borrowed.  He  is  probably  right,  for  the 
incident  forms  an  integral  part  of  both  plays,  but  it  is  worth  while 
observing  (which  Dr  Tennant  does  not)  that  the  Widow  though 
probably  written  somewhere  about  1625  was  first  printed  (as  by 
Jonson,  Fletcher,  and  Middleton)  in  1652,  twenty-one  years  after  the 
New  Inn.  Apparently  we  must  regard  it  as  one  of  those  cases  in  which 
at  the  end  of  his  life  Jonson  wove  into  his  plays  fragments  of  earlier 
work  done  in  collaboration  with  other  writers.  Such  patching  has 
already  been  pointed  out  by  Dr  De  Winter  and  Mr  Crawford  in  the 
Staple  of  News.  Then  again  there  is  the  noteworthy  fact  that  the  New 
Inn  contains  two  passages  of  considerable  length  which  recur  almost 
verbatim  in  Love's  Pilgrimage  first  printed  in  the  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  folio  of  1647.  Here,  however,  it  seems  impossible  to  decide 
for  certain  whether  (i)  Jonson  was  concerned  in  the  original  composition 


Reviews  415 

of  Love's  Pilgrimage  and  reclaimed  his  own  work,  whether  (ii)  Jonson 
in  the  New  Inn  borrowed  work  of  Fletcher's,  or  whether  (iii)  the  passage 
from  the  New  Inn  was  inserted  in  Loves  Pilgrimage  between  1631  and 
1647.  Dr  Tennant  favours  the  last  alternative. 

The  text  aims  at  being  an  exact  reprint  in  all  but  typographical 
arrangement  of  the  accurately  though  not  very  well  printed  original. 
Even  obvious  misprints  are  retained,  the  readings  of  later  editions  being 
recorded  at  the  foot  of  the  page.  So  far  as  it  has  been  possible  to  check 
it  the  text  seems  quite  correct.  I  only  remark  that  whereas  the  editor 
began  by  printing  '  i'  the '  &c.  where  the  original  has  '  i'the '  &c.,  he 
altered  his  practice  during  the  course  of  his  work  and  towards  the 
end  follows  the  original  in  this  detail.  Great  pains  have  evidently  been 
taken  to  make  the  text  thoroughly  trustworthy,  while  at  the  same  time 
much  learning  has  been  collected  in  the  introduction  and  notes. 

W.  W.  GREG. 
CAMBRIDGE. 


The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle.  By  BEAUMONT  AND  FLETCHER. 
Edited  by  H.  S.  MURCH.  (Yale  Studies  in  English,  xxxin.) 
New  York:  Henry  Holt,  1908.  8vo.  cxiv  +  310  pp. 

Dr  Murch's  edition  of  the  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  is  a 
thoroughly  unsatisfactory  piece  of  work.  This  does  not  mean  that 
a  great  deal  of  labour  and  a  considerable  amount  of  erudition  has  not 
gone  to  its  production,  but  that  it  is  marked  by  a  lack  of  editorial, 
competency,  a  want  of  critical  temper,  and  grave  lapses  of  attention 
which  deprive  it  of  a  large  part  of  the  value  it  ought  to  have  possessed. 

The  character  of  the  work  becomes  obvious  on  the  very  first  page. 
'  Owing,  no  doubt,  to  the  unsettled  condition  of  orthography  at  the  time, 
inconsistencies  in  spelling,  also,  are  to  be  found  in  the  quarto.'  Was 
there  ever  a  more  fatuous  remark  ?  'All  things  considered,'  again,  the 
editor  has  actually  decided  to  adopt  for  his  edition  the  only  authoritative 
text.  There  are  three  quartos,  one  of  1613,  and  two  dated  1635.  These 
are  numbered  1,  2, 3;  but  no  identification  marks  are  given  to  distinguish 
those  bearing  the  same  date,  so  that  the  student  is  forced  to  rummage 
among  the  collations  to  discover  which  quarto  is  called  2  and  which  3. 
Neither  are  we  definitely  told  whether  Q2  is  printed  from  Ql  and  Q3 
from  Q2,  though  both  these  facts  follow  from  the  collations  quoted.  Of 
the  folio  it  is  said  that  'An  examination  of  its  readings... will  show  that 
the  quartos  of  1635,  rather  than  the  quarto  of  1613,  are  depended  upon.' 
This  is  culpable  vagueness.  The  folio,  as  the  collations  show,  was 
printed  from  Q3.  Now  the  quarto  which  has  the  readings  here  (cor- 
rectly) ascribed  to  Q2  is  distinguished  by  having  on  the  title-page  the 
name  '  Beaumont '  in  the  usual  spelling,  while  in  that  with  the  Q3 
readings  the  name  is  spelt  '  Beamount ' ;  and  I  may  incidentally  remark 
that  this  third  quarto  though  dated,  like  the  second,  1635,  was  quite 
likely  not  printed  till  fifteen  or  twenty  years  later.  It  may  seem 


416  Reviews 

hypercritical  to  insist  upon  Dr  Murch's  failure  properly  to  distinguish 
these  two  quartos ;  but  it  so  happens  that  it  has  led  him  into  a  curious 
and  rather  bad  error.  At  the  end  of  the  text,  namely,  he  has  reprinted 
the  preliminary  matter  peculiar  to  the  later  editions.  He  states  defi- 
nitely that  the  reprint  is  made  from  '  the  Second  Quarto,  1635,'  but  as 
a  matter  of  fact  it  is  from  the  '  Beamount '  quarto  which  he  has  in  his 
collations  quite  correctly  called  Q3.  There  are,  moreover,  several  inac- 
curacies in  this  reprint,  the  chief  being  the  omission  of  the  imprint 
'  Printed  by  N.  0.  for  /.  S.  1635.'  from  the  title-page. 

To  resume.  Utterly  misleading  are  such  statements  as  that  'rich  and 
influential  tradesmen  and  their  aggressive  wives... more  and  more  under 
James  I  assumed  a  sort  of  dictatorship  over  the  theatre.'  The  contrary 
is  true,  for  the  merchant  class  was  becoming  more  and  more  pro- 
nouncedly puritan  and  the  puritans  more  and  more  opposed  to  all 
theatrical  activity.  Throughout  James'  and  Charles'  reigns  the  drama 
became  continuously  less  bourgeois  and  more  aristocratic.  Again, 
speaking  of  the  revival  Dr  Murch  says :  '  It  is  probable  that,  as  given 
at  the  Cockpit,  it  was  acted  before  aristocratic  spectators,  since  that 
theatre  was  a  "  private  house." '  But  so  was  the  Blackfriars,  at  which 
the  original  performance  in  all  probability  took  place.  The  change  was 
in  the  character  of  the  audience,  not  of  the  house,  and  shows  that  the 
civic  was  a  diminishing,  not  an  increasing  element.  The  editor  quotes 
Langbaine  for  a  revival  with  a  prologue  spoken  by  Nell  Gwyn,  and 
Genest  for  one  in  1682.  '  So  far  as  I  am  aware/  he  adds,  '  it  has  been 
only  recently  revived,  and,  moreover,  only  in  America.'  The  statement 
will  not  pass  unnoticed  by  those  who  remember  Mr  Nigel  Playfair's 
admirable  impersonation  of  Ralph.  Nor  was  that  the  first  modern 
revival  in  this  country. 

A  list  of  plays  '  which  have  a  more  or  less  evident  relation  to  the 
romances,'  i.e.  the  chivalric  romances,  includes  the  Trial  of  Chivalry. 
This  is  in  no  way  chivalric :  the  editor  has  presumably  not  read  it.  In  the 
same  list  liter  Pendragon  is  dated  1589.  It  was  a  new  play  on  April  29, 
1597.  Sir  Clyomon  is  said  to  be  '  evidently  based  directly  upon  some 
lost  romance.'  This  is  guess  work  of  the  worst  sort ;  for  my  own  part 
I  do  not  believe  it.  Worse  than  this  by  far  is  the  omission  of  all  mention 
of  the  Old  Wives  Tale,  that  remarkable  predecessor  of  the  Knight  of  the 
Burning  Pestle  in  the  field  of  chivalric  burlesque,  though  the  editor 
goes  as  far  afield  and  as  wide  of  the  mark  as  Thersytes  in  his  search  for 
parallels. 

The  question  of  authorship  has  always  been  a  difficult  one,  though 
critics  are  agreed  in  assigning  a  predominant  share  to  Beaumont. 
The  present  editor  gives  him  all  but  the  Luce-Jasper  scenes  (he  is 
unfortunately  vague  in  the  exact  delimitation).  This  means  ascribing 
in  1 — 150,  with  a  proportion  of  double  endings  as  low  as  33  per  cent., 
to  Fletcher  on  the  strength  of  a  low  proportion  of  run-on  lines.  This 
seems  a  very  doubtful  proceeding,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Fletcher's 
usual  percentage  is  about  70.  Unless,  moreover,  these  various  tests 
give  approximately  consonant  results,  what  weight  can  they  carry  ? 


Reviews  417 

As  regards  the  production  of  the  play  Dr  Murch  concludes  that  it 
was  performed  by  a  children's  company  in  1610.  But  there  is  very 
little  doubt  that  we  must  assign  it  to  the  Blackfriars  house,  and  the 
editor  has  come  no  nearer  than  his  predecessors  to  explaining  the 
passage  which  seems  to  imply  that  the  house  where  the  play  was  acted 
had  then  been  open  seven  years.  The  Blackfriars  was  open  before  the 
end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  It  does  not  in  the  least  help  matters  to 
suggest  that  the  performance  may  '  have  been  at  another  theatre  than 
Blackfriars/  for  no  known  house  was  opened  in  1603.  After  Mr  Chambers' 
arguments  in  the  Modern  Language  Review  for  last  January  (p.  161) 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  true  date  is  1607. 

The  question  of  the  dependence  of  the  play  on  Don  Quixote  is  treated 
at  length  and  a  pretty  conclusive  case  seems  to  be  made  out  for  referring 
all  cases  of  alleged  similarity  either  to  natural  coincidence  arising  out 
of  the  common  situation  or  to  dependence  on  the  romances  of  chivalry 
themselves.  The  chief  sources  seem  to  be  Amadis,  Palmerin  de  Oliva, 
Palmerin  of  England  and  the  Mirror  of  Knighthood.  The  subject  is  well 
treated  and  forms  much  the  best  section  of  the  Introduction.  The  least 
commendable  section,  on  the  other  hand,  is  perhaps  that  headed  'Objects 
of  the  Satire.'  This  includes  miscellaneous  observations  on  chivalric 
romances  and  their  dramatic  offspring,  the  civic  drama  with  its  glori- 
fication of  bourgeois  prowess,  the  tastes  of  the  city  and  the  behaviour  of 
Jacobean  audiences.  The  discussion  is  loaded  with  a  painful  amount  of 
pretentious  and  superficial  writing,  attempts  at  local  and  historical  colour 
which  only  result  in  the  misuse  of  technical  terms  ('  the  Worshipful 
Company  of  Aldermen ')  and  the  general  substitution  of  rhetoric  for 
reason.  The  continental  romances,  we  are  "told,  never  had  '  wide  vogue 
among  the  English  aristocracy '  owing  to  the  appeal  of  the  Arthurian 
legends  '  with  their  organic  religious  principle  and  their  fine  consecra- 
tions, together  with  their  distinctly  national  aroma ' — whatever  all  this 
may  mean.  Commoners  on  the  other  hand  fed  on  the  popular  chap-books 
and  romances  which  went  abroad  to  town  and  village  'in  their  attractive 
bindings.'  One  would  be  curious  to  know  the  source  of  Dr  Murch's 
information  concerning  the  binding  of  these  books — most  popular  prints 
had  none  at  all.  In  the  same  uncritical  and  hasty  spirit  he  quotes 
passages  from  a  seventeenth  century  writer,  and  refers  not  to  the 
original  but  to  M.  Jusserand — misquotes,  moreover,  and  gives  a  wrong 
reference.  He  seldom  gives  chapter  and  verse  for  any  allusion  and  is 
quite  content  to  call  a  play  by  its  sub-title. 

It  is  a  relief  to  turn  to  the  text  of  the  play,  which  is  distinctly  above 
the  average.  The  first  quarto  has  been  reprinted  verbatim  with  all  its 
errors.  How  far  this  is  a  j  udicious  proceeding  may,  indeed,  be  questioned. 
It  is  one  thing  so  to  reproduce  a  play  from  the  1616  folio  of  Ben  Jonson, 
quite  another  to  follow  the  same  method  in  such  a  case  as  this.  How- 
ever, it  is  a  safeguard  against  undue  tampering  with  the  text.  The 
title-page  is  inaccurately  given.  Not  only  has  the  line  arrangement 
been  altered,  but  the  reading  'natos  '  has  been  altered  to  '  natum.'  With. 

M.  L.  R.  iv.  27 


418  Reviews 

this  exception,  and  the  appendix  of  1635  already  mentioned,  the  text 
appears,  so  far  as  it  has  been  possible  to  test  it,  very  reasonably  accurate. 
Something,  however,  has  gone  wrong  with  I,  165  where  'became'  should 
be  '  beame.'  The  text  of  an  .edition  is  an  important  feature,  and  a  trust- 
worthy reprint  is  always  welcome. 

W.  W.  GREG. 
CAMBRIDGE. 


The  Development  and  Chronology  of  Chaucer's  Works.  By  JOHN  S.  P. 
TATLOCK.  (Chaucer  Society.)  London:  Kegan  Paul,  Trench, 
Trubner  and  Co.,  1907.  8vo.  xiv  +  233  pp. 

We  have  here  a  valuable  contribution  to  Chaucer  scholarship,  and  a 
further  indication  of  the  healthy  activity  which  characterises  the  pursuit 
of  English  studies  in  America.  Owing  to  the  superior  organisation  of 
research  in  the  universities  of  the  United  States,  we  in  this  country  are 
in  danger  of  being  altogether  outstripped ;  and  it  is  a  pleasure  to  note 
how  keenly  the  minutest  details  relating  to  Chaucer  and  his  works  are 
discussed  by  transatlantic  scholars.  Dr  Tatlock  is  well  known  as  a 
Chaucer  scholar,  and  he  here  contributes  to  the  publications  of  the 
Chaucer  Society  a  discussion  on  the  development  and  chronology  of  the 
principal  works,  omitting  the  minor  poems  for  want  of  space.  The 
author  deserves  credit  for  fully  exposing  the  baselessness  of  some  of  the 
assumptions  which  have  been  made  or  accepted  by  scholars  without 
any  real  support  of  evidence ;  though  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  spins 
a  few  cobwebs  of  his  own,  which  others  who  come  after  him  will  have 
to  sweep  away.  If  in  the  remarks  which  follow  doubt  is  cast  upon 
some  of  his  conclusions,  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  the  value  of  the 
work  as  a  whole  is  denied.  Even  when  the  author  is  arguing  for  a 
probably  baseless  theory,  he  usually  gives  us  a  valuable  collection  of 
materials  for  forming  an  opinion,  which  are  presented  with  as  much 
fairness  and  impartiality  as  can  be  expected  from  an  eager  disputant. 

Dr  Tatlock's  study  begins  with  a  discussion  of  the  supposed  two 
versions  of  Troilus  and  Criseyde,  with  regard  to  which  he  has  had  the 
advantage  of  using  Dr  McCormick's  unpublished  work;  and  here  he 
seems  to  have  fairly  established  his  case.  On  the  vexed  question  of  the 
date  of  the  original  text  of  the  poem  he  supports  with  further  argument 
the  view  which  he  has  formerly  advocated,  namely  that  Gower's  mention 
in  the  Mirour  de  I'Omme  of 

la  geste 

De  Troylus  et  de  la  belle 
Creseide 

is  a  reference  to  Chaucer's  poem,  and  consequently  that  this  latter  must 
be  as  early  as  1377,  a  conclusion  for  which  he  thinks  other  cogent 


Reviews  419 

reasons  may  be  urged.  His  arguments,  however,  are  by  no  means 
convincing.  It  is  extremely  unlikely  that  Gower  was  referring  here  to  a 
particular  poem,  and  especially  to  such  a  long  and  elaborate  piece  of  work 
as  Chaucer's,  which,  we  may  add,  could  not  possibly  be  '  sung,'  whatever 
Chaucer  himself  may  say  when  in  straits  for  a  rhyme.  The  reference 
to  Troilus  as  a  lover  by  Froissart  is  enough  to  show  that  the  love-story, 
as  told  by  Benoit,  was  well  known,  and  whether  the  change  of  name 
(Briseida  to  Criseida),  on  which  so  much  stress  is  laid,  was  first  made 
by  Boccaccio  or  not  (the  difference  between  Griseida  and  Criseida  is  not 
really  important),  the  occurrence  of  the  new  form  Criseida  in  at  least 
one  14th  century  MS.  of  Guido  is  significant.  Incidentally  it  may  be 
remarked  that  it  is  very  unsafe  to  assert  positively  that  Gower  knew 
no  Italian.  Italian  was  not  a  very  out-of-the-way  language,  and  it 
must  have  been  familiar  to  many  in  the  mercantile  world  of  London  in 
the  14th  century.  Why  again  must  the  reference  in  the  Gonfessio 
Amantis  (iv,  2794)  be  to  Chaucer's  Troilus  ?  Why  not  (for  example) 
to  Benoit  ?  But  these  questions,  of  the  popularity  of  the  Troilus  love- 
story  and  the  use  of  the  name  Criseida,  will  doubtless  be  determined 
eventually  by  further  evidence.  As  to  the  suggested  revision  of 
Chaucer's  Troilus  before  1387,  the  supposed  date  of  the  Testament  of 
Love,  there  is  nothing  here  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  date  1382-3 
for  the  original  production.  Indeed  it  is  more  likely  that  the  revision 
took  place  early,  than  that  Chaucer  should  have  returned  to  the  poem 
after  an  interval  of  many  years. 

Dr  Tatlock  has  dealt  fully  and  faithfully  with  the  now  utterly  dis- 
credited theory  of  a  Palamon  and  Arcite  in  stanzas.  It  is  perhaps 
worth  while  even  now  to  have  the  arguments  effectively  stated,  and 
the  metrical  examination  of  the  Knight's  Tale  which  Dr  Tatlock 
gives  us  is  really  convincing.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing 
that  a  Palamon  and  Arcite  in  couplets,  practically  identical  with  the 
Knights  Tale,  came  between  Troilus  and  the  Legend  of  Good  Women ; 
but  there  is  no  need  to  suggest  that  the  phrase  'though  the  story 
is  knowen  lyte'  means  anything  more  than  that  it  was  not  told  in 
Classical  authors  : 

Tanto  negli  anni  riposta  e  nascosa, 
Che  Latino  autor  non  par  ne  dica, 
Per  quel  ch'  io  senta,  in  libro  alcuna  cosa. 

With  regard  to  the  two  Prologues  to  the  Legend  of  Good  Women 
Dr  Tatlock  is  on  the  side  of  Professor  Lowes,  though  he  thinks  that 
the  intricacy  of  the  question  has  hardly  been  fully  appreciated.  He 
offers  further  argument  for  the  idea  that  the  poem  was  at  first  written 
in  honour  of  the  Queen,  and  that  the  revision  was  undertaken  after  her 
death  in  1394,  out  of  consideration  for  the  feelings  of  King  Richard, 
who  could  endure  no  reference  to  her  after  her  death. 

In  dealing  with  the  Canterbury  Tales  Dr  Tatlock  accepts  the  sug- 
gestion of  a  direct  reference  to  Katherine  Swinford  in  the  Doctor's  Tale, 

27—2 


420  Reviews 

an  idea  which  is  almost  excluded  by  Chaucer's  personal  connexion  with 
her.  On  p.  187  he  refers  to  a  mention  in  Gower's  Vox  Clamantis  of 
the  crusade  of  the  Bp  of  Norwich,  as  evidence  that  the  third  book  of 
that  poem  was  written  later  than  1382.  He  should  have  observed  that 
this  mention  is  made  only  in  a  marginal  note,  which  was  certainly 
added  after  the  first  composition  of  the  work,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  it  appears  only  in  the  MSS.  which  represent  the  later  recension. 
The  suggestions  with  regard  to  the  relations  of  the  Shipman's  Tale  with 
the  Prologue  of  the  Wife  of  Bath,  and  of  both  with  the  Merchant's  Tale, 
are  interesting  but  rather  speculative.  More  detailed  discussion  on 
the  Canterbury  Tales  is  reserved  for  a  future  volume,  to  which  we  look 
forward  with  interest,  and  also  with  the  hope  that  it  may  contain  what 
is  unfortunately  lacking  in  the  present  book,  namely  an  index.  Dr 
Tatlock  admits  that  his  conclusions  are  not  all  equally  valuable.  '  They 
are  presented  for  what  they  are  worth,  because  the  publication  of 
plausible  conjecture,  founded  on  investigation  and  recognised  as  con- 
jecture, leads  in  the  long  run  to  the  most  fruitful  and  reliable  results/ 
The  keenness  of  modern  controversy  on  subjects  relating  to  Chaucer 
justifies  this  attitude.  There  is  no  longer  any  danger  that  plausible 
conjecture  will  impose  itself  upon  scholars  or  upon  the  public  without 
due  examination. 

G.  C.  MACAULAY. 
CAMBRIDGE. 


Chaucer's  Prologue  and  Knight's  Tale.     Edited  by  M.  BENTINCK  SMITH. 
Cambridge :  University  Press.     1908.     8vo.     Ixxxvii  +  229  pp. 

Of  the  making  of  editions  of  the  Prologue  and  (to  a  less  degree)  of 
the  Knight's  Tale  there  is  no  end,  and  any  new  edition  must  be 
thoroughly  good  to  justify  itself.  The  present  edition  does  so  chiefly  by 
the  excellence  of  the  introduction.  The  first  four  sections  deal  with 
Chaucer's  life  and  works  and  are  models  of  clearness  and  conciseness. 
The  editor  has  avoided  dogmatism  on  points  still  under  discussion  and 
has  thus  escaped  the  mistake  so  often  made  in  elementary  text-books 
of  treating  the  subject  as  if  there  were  no  such  things  as  moot-points  of 
scholarship.  The  fifth  section  deals  with  Chaucer's  language  and  is 
a  useful  summary  of  the  chief  points  of  importance.  In  dealing  with 
the  e-sounds  it  might  have  been  as  well  to  differentiate  the  open  and 
close  sounds  by  some  parallel  other  than  that  of  the  French  e  and  e, 
sounds  with  which  the  young  student  is  not  of  necessity  accurately 
familiar.  The  statement  that  ai,  ay  or  ei,  ey  are  to  be  pronounced  as 
in  Modern  English  array,  way  must  be  a  slip.  The  statement  that  ch 
is  pronounced  as  tch.  even  (the  italics  are  mine)  in  words  of  French 


Reviews  421 

origin,  is  slightly  misleading  as  all  early  loan-words  from  French  kept 
what  was  then  the  regular  French  pronunciation  of  ch.  In  the  account 
of  Chaucer's  metre  something  is  lost  by  the  failure  to  discuss  his  use  of 
secondarily  stressed  syllables  in  place  of  fully  stressed  ones.  The  average 
student  has  an  extremely  wooden  idea  of  the  structure  of  Chaucer's 
verse  unless  he  realises  this  point.  The  last  three  sections  of  the 
Introduction  deal  with  the  general  plan  of  the  Tales,  the  literary 
characteristics  of  the  Prologue  and  the  evolution  of  the  Knight's  Tale. 

The  notes  are  less  satisfactory.  In  classics  of  a  later  age  one  has 
generally  to  complain  of  an  excess  of  notes.  In  editing  Middle  English 
texts,  at  least  for  junior  students,  the  case  is  different.  The  subtle 
distinctions  of  idiom,  whether  of  word  or  sentence,  are  only  too  readily 
left  unnoticed  by  the  student,  and  timely  hints  on  these  points  might 
have  been  given  more  freely.  Then,  too,  apt  illustrations  of  medieval 
life  and  manners,  such  as  are  given  in  Mr  Pollard's  excellent  editions, 
are  of  the  highest  importance,  as  they  arouse  literary  and  historical 
interest  in  Chaucer's  work  and  prevent  its  study  from  becoming  a 
mere  philological  exercise.  Notes  of  this  kind  are  not  as  full  as  they 
might  be. 

In  the  note  on  1.  8  should  not  '  palatalisation '  be  '  vocalisation '  ? 
In  1.  33  the  O.N.  form  is  not  needed  as  O.E.  foreiveard  is  well 
established.  A  note  should  have  been  given  on  the  difficulties  of 
construction  in  11.  173 — 6.  The  explanation  of  'sho'  in  1.  253  as  the 
name  of  a  coin  seems  unnecessary  and  does  not  make  the  passage 
easier.  In  the  note  on  1.  710  'alder'  is  spoken  of  as  a  corrupt  form  of 
O.E.  ealra.  The  use  of  this  epithet  in  the  case  of  a  form  which  is 
capable  of  regular  phonetic  explanation  is  misleading,  and  belongs 
rather  to  the  pre-scientific  days  of  language-study.  In  1.  800  if  '  this 
post'  refers  to  the  'sign-post'  of  the  inn  (whatever  that  may  be  precisely), 
it  is  very  difficult  to  explain  the  previous  expression  '  sitting  by.'  In  the 
note  on  1.  1118  there  is  a  misprint,  'she'  for  'sle.'  In  1.  2534  the  form 
'  cracchen '  cannot  be  Old  English,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  editor  uses 
that  term.  These  are  a  few  points  of  criticism  on  notes  which,  so  far  as 
they  go,  are  excellent. 

In  conclusion,  a  word  of  protest  must  be  raised  against  the  way  in 
which  quoted  words  in  the  notes  are  not  distinguished  either  by  type 
or  by  the  use  of  inverted  commas  from  other  words  in  the  sentence. 
It  is  not  conducive  to  clearness  and  is  at  times  positively  misleading. 

ALLEN  MAWER. 

NEWCASTLE. 


422  Reviews 


Origenes  de  la  Noveia.     Tomo  n.     Novelas  de  los  Siglos  xv  y  xvi,  con 

un  estudio  preliminar  de  D.  M.  MENICNDEZ  Y  PELAYO.     (Nueva 

Biblioteca  de  Autores  Espanoles.)   Madrid:  Bailly-Bailliere  e  Hijos, 

1907.     8vo.     cxl  +  587  pp. 
Primera  Cronica  General.     Estoria  de  Espana  que  mand(5  componer 

Alfonso  el  Sabio  y  se  continuaba  bajo  Sancho  IV  en  1289.     Publi- 

cada  por  RAM^N   MENENDEZ   PIDAL.     Tomo   i.     Texto.     (Same 

Series.)     1906.     iv  +  774pp. 
Libros   de   Caballerias.     Primera   Parte.     Ciclo   arturico.     Ciclo  caro- 

lingio.     Por  ADOLFO  BONILLA  Y   SAN  MART!N.    (Same   Series.) 

1907.     556  pp. 
Comedias  de  Tirso  de  Molina.     Tomo  u.     Coleccion  ordenada  e  ilus- 

trada  por  D.  EMILIO  COTARELO  Y  MORI.     (Same  Series.)     1907. 

xlvi  +  742  pp. 
Cronicas  del  Gran  Gapitdn.     Por  ANTONIO  RODR!GUEZ  VILLA.     (Same 

Series.)     1908.     xvii  +  612pp. 

The  volumes  of  the  new  Biblioteca  de  Autores  Espanoles  follow  each 
other  with  most  commendable  promptness.  The  second  volume  of  the 
Origins  of  the  Novel  does  not  yield  in  interest  or  importance  to  the  first, 
which  appeared  in  1905.  It  consists  of  an  Introduction  covering  140 
pages,  and  the  following  texts:  Cdrcel  de  Amor  of  Diego  de  San  Pedro; 
Question  de  Amor ;  Villalon,  Didlogo  de  las  Transformaciones  (inedited), 
El  Crotalon;  the  Diana  of  Montemayor;  Diana  Enamorada  of  Gil  Polo; 
Pastor  de  Filida  of  Montalvo  and  the  Coloquios  satiricos  of  Antonio  de 
Torquemada.  Among  the  subjects  discussed  by  Sr.  Menendez  y  Pelayo 
in  the  introduction  are  the  Italian  novelists  in  Spain;  the  widely  known 
Silva  de  Varia  Leccion  of  Mexia ;  the  Sobremesa  y  A  livio  de  Caminantes 
and  the  Patranuelo  of  Timoneda,  and  lastly  the  Noches  de  Invierno  of 
Antonio  de  Eslava. 

This  preliminary  essay  shows  all  the  qualities  which  were  so  con- 
spicuous in  the  first  volume  of  this  work  and  for  which  the  author  is 
noted :  vast  erudition  and  a  brilliancy  of  exposition  in  which  he  is 
unequalled.  The  English  reader  will  be  especially  interested  in  the 
detailed  discussion  of  Antonio  de  Eslava's  Noches  de  Invierno  (which 
appeared  at  Pamplona  in  1609)  '  gran  curiosidad  bibliografica,  ya  por  el 
remote  origen  de  algunas  de  sus  fabulas,  ya  por  la  extraordinaria  fortuna 
que  alguna  de  ellas,  original  al  parecer,  ha  tenido  en  el  orbe  literario, 
prestando  elementos  a  una  de  las  creaciones  de  Shakespeare '  (p.  cxxii). 
It  is  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Primera  Noche  that  Richard  Garnett 
and  other  modern  English  scholars,  as  Sr.  Menendez  says,  believed  they 
saw  the  germ  of  Shakespeare's  fantastic  drama  The  Tempest.  He 
concludes :  '  Las  semejanzas  de  este  argumento  con  el  de  The  Tempest 
son  tan  obvias  que  parece  dificil  dejar  de  admitir  una  imitacidn  directa.' 
But,  he  says :  '  Este  es  sin  duda  el  esquema  de  la  obra  shakespiriana, 
pero  j  cuan  lejos  esta  de  la  obra  misma  \  Todo  lo  que  tiene  de  profundo 
y  simb<51ico,  todo  lo  que  tiene  de  musical  y  etereo,  es  creaci6n  propia  del 


Reviews  423 

genio  de  Shakespeare,  que  nunca  se  mostro"  tan  admirablemente  lirico 
como  en  esta  prodigiosa  fantasia,  la  cual,  por  su  misma  vaguedad,  sumerge 
el  espiritu  en  inefable  arrobamiento.'  The  type  in  which  the  texts  are 
printed  unfortunately  lacks  the  clearness  of  some  of  the  other  volumes. 

One  of  the  most  important  books  in  Spanish  literature  is  unquestion- 
ably the  General  Chronicle  of  Spain  by  Alfonso  the  Learned  (died  1284). 
It  was  first  published  at  Zamora  in  1541  and  again  at  Valladolid  in 
1604;  both  these  editions  have  become  exceedingly  rare.  Of  this 
Chronicle  Ticknor  says :  '  Everywhere  it  breathes  the  spirit  of  its  age, 
and,  when  taken  together,  is  not  only  the  most  interesting  of  the 
Spanish  chronicles,  but  the  most  interesting  of  all  that  in  any  country 
mark  the  transition  from  its  poetical  and  romantic  traditions  to  the 

frave  exactness  of  historical  truth.'     The  Cronica  General  was  a  store- 
ouse  that  was  freely  used  by  the  writers  of  ballads  and  the  dramatists, 
Lope  de  Vega  especially  having  founded  a  number  of  his  dramas  on 
incidents  related  in  it. 

No  living  scholar  was  as  well  equipped  for  the  extremely  difficult 
task  of  editing  the  new  edition  of  the  Cronica  General  as  Sr.  Menendez 
Pidal,  author  of  the  Leyenda  de  los  Siete  Infantas  de  Lara.  His  account 
of  the  various  unsuccessful  attempts  to  renew  the  edition  of  Flprian  de 
Ocarnpo  are  interesting.  It  was  finally  decided  to  include  it  in  the 
Biblioteca  de  Autores  Espanoles  when  the  first  series  was  originally 
projected,  but  Cayetano  Rosell,  who  was  charged  with  it,  shrank  from 
the  stupendous  task  of  editing  a  work  which,  as  he  said,  the  Academy 
of  History  would  never  attempt,  though  the  labour  of  providing  a  new 
edition  had  been  imposed  upon  them  as  long  ago  as  1798.  '  What 
disheartens  anyone  who  studies  this  chronicle,'  Sr.  Menendez  Pidal  says, 
'is  the  great  divergence  which  is  revealed  on  comparing  the  many 
codices  which  are  preserved  of  this  long  text.'  The  editor  further  says : 
'  Having  devoted  myself  for  many  years  to  the  study  of  the  manuscripts 
of  the  Cronicas,  I  believe  that  I  have  succeeded  in  making  a  classifica- 
tion of  them,  fixing  the  various  compilations  and  reworkings  which  they 
represent  and  the  periods  to  which  they  belong.  The  MSS.  which  were 
formerly  confounded  under  the  title  of  Crdnica  General  del  Rey  Sabio 
are  the  fruit  of  almost  centuries  of  histriographic  activity,  beginning 
with  the  Primera  Crdnica  General,  commanded  to  be  written  by 
Alfonso  X.,  and  following  with  the  "  Crdnica  General  of  1344,"  that  of 
the  "  Twenty  Kings,"  the  Third  and  Fourth  Chronicle  General,  that  of 
1404,  and  others  of  less  importance... I  hope  in  the  present  publication 
to  have  succeeded  in  offering  the  Primera  Crdnica  General  free  from 
the  many  interpolations  and  rearrangements  of  every  kind  which  it  has 
suffered  in  the  course  of  time.'  The  edition  now  published  is  a  delight 
to  the  eye ;  it  is  presented  in  new  clear  type  which  renders  it  easy  and 
pleasant  reading.  Sr.  Menendez  Pidal  has  conferred  a  boon  upon  all 
interested  in  the  early  history  and  literature  of  Spain  for  which  they 
cannot  fail  to  be  grateful. 

The  Spanish  Romances  of  Chivalry  had  been  treated  with  con- 
siderable fulness  by  Sr.  Menendez  y  Pelayo  in  the  first  volume  of  his 


424  Reviews 

Origenes  de  la  Novela.  The  well  known  scholar  Sr.  Bonilla  y  San 
Martin  has  now  published  a  volume  of  the  Romances  of  Chivalry  of 
the  Arthurian  and  Carolingian  cycles.  Only  the  texts  are  here  presented, 
without  any  introductory  matter,  which  is  to  follow  in  a  second  volume. 
This  one  contains  (1)  El  Baladro  del  Sabio  Merlin,  Primera  Parte  de  la 
Demanda  del  Sancto  Grial.  This  is,  apparently  (for  it  is  nowhere 
stated),  a  reprint  of  the  volume  that  was  issued  at  Burgos  in  1498,  and 
of  which  only  a  single  copy  is  in  existence,  so  far  as  is  known.  The 
other  Baladro  del  Sabio  Merlin,  different  from  the  first,  at  least  in  part, 
and  which  contains  besides  a  series  of  prophecies,  which  was  several 
times  printed  with  the  Demanda  del  Sancto  Grial,  is  contained  in  the 
British  Museum  in  the  earliest  edition  known,  Toledo,  1515.  This  was 
evidently  inaccessible  to  Sr.  Bonilla,  who  has  reprinted  the  edition  of 
Seville,  1535 :  (2)  La  Demanda  del  Sancto  Grial  con  los  marauillosos 
fechos  de  Ldcarote  y  de  Galas  su  hijo.  Segunda  Parte  de  la  Demanda 
del  Sancto  Grial.  (3)  Libro  del  Esforzado  Gaballero  don  Tristan  de 
Leonis  y  de  sus  grandes  hechos  en  Armas,  printed  at  Seville  in  1528, 
a  Spanish  translation  of  the  French  prose  version.  There  is  an  edition 
published  at  Valladolid  in  1501  by  Juan  de  Burgos,  a  copy  of  which 
was  in  the  Salva-Heredia  collection.  (4)  Cr6nica  de  los  muy  notables 
Caualleros  Tablante  de  Ricamonte  y  de  Jofre  hijo  del  Conde  Don  Anson, 
printed  at  Estella  in  1564.  In  the  Carolingian  Cycle :  (5)  Cuento  del 
Enperador  Carlos  Maynes  e  de  la  Enperatris  Seuilla,  published  according 
to  the  MS.  h-j-13,  of  the  Escurial  library,  with  a  facsimile  of  a  page  of 
the  manuscript.  The  second  volume  of  Sr.  Bonilla's  publication  will 
contain,  beside  the  introductory  matter,  among  other  texts,  the  fragment 
of  the  Spanish  Tristan  in  prose,  the  MS.  of  which  is  in  the  Vatican 
library.  It  will  be  awaited  with  eagerness  by  all  who  are  interested  in 
these  romances,  which  have  played  such  an  important  part  in  the 
literature  of  Spain. 

With  the  second  volume  of  the  Comedias  de  Tirso  de  Molina, 
Sr.  Cotarelo  y  Mori  concludes  the  publication  of  those  plays  of  the 
great  '  Mercenario,'  the  greater  part  of  which  have  been  inaccessible  to 
the  general  student  of  the  Spanish  drama.  It  comprises  twenty-eight 
plays,  including  El  Burlador  de  Sevilla,  previously  printed  by  Hartzen- 
busch,  and  Tan  largo  me  lo  fiais,  attributed  to  Calderon,  and  which  was 
published,  together  with  two  comedias  by  Guillen  de  Castro  in  1878  in 
the  Libros  raros.  The  volume  contains,  besides,  an  excellent  Catdlogo 
razonado  del  Teatro  de  Tirso  de  Molina,  occupying  forty-six  pages,  and 
which  shows  that  out  of  about  four  hundred  plays  which  Tirso  wrote, 
just  eighty-six  are  still  extant.  The  plays  are  evidently  printed  with 
great  care,  in  clean,  clear  type,  agreeable  to  the  eye  and  should  gain 
many  readers  for  the  great  dramatist.  Sr.  Cotarelo,  to  whose  important 
publications  the  student  of  the  Spanish  drama  owes  so  much,  is  to  be 
congratulated  on  the  excellent  manner  in  which  he  has  fulfilled  this 
difficult  and  very  exacting  task. 

In  the  Gronicas  del  Gran  Gapitdn,  Sr.  Antonio  Rodriguez  Villa,  well 
known  for  his  edition  of  the  Didlogo  de  los  Pajes  and  other  works, 


Reviews  425 

publishes  a  number  of  chronicles  relating  to  Don  Goncalo  de  Cdrdoba. 
The  first  of  these,  called  Las  dos  Conquistas  del  Reino  de  Ndpoles, 
appeared  originally  at  Zaragoza  in  1554.  Other  editions  appeared  at 
Zaragoza  1559,  Seville  1580  (also  1582,  not  mentioned  by  the  editor), 
and  Alcala  de  Henares  1584.  The  latter,  which  seemed  the  most  correct 
to  the  editor,  is  the  one  here  reprinted.  A  comparison  of  this  reprint 
with  a  copy  of  the  original  in  the  writer's  possession,  shows  that  the 
new  edition  is  done  with  great  care.  It  may  be  mentioned  in  passing 
that  this  is  the  book  which  Ticknor  calls  '  the  poor  and  dull  chronicle 
of  the  life  of  Gonzalvo.'  In  the  preface  this  chronicle  is  falsely  ascribed 
to  Hernando  Perez  del  Pulgar,  Sefior  de  Salar.  Sr.  Rodriguez  Villa 
also  publishes  (2)  the  anonymous  Oronica  manuscrita,  from  .the  MS.  in 
the  Biblioteca  Nacional,  (3)  the  Vita  di  Gonsalvo  Fernando  di  Cordova, 
detto  il  Gran  Capitano  by  Paolo  Giovio,  Firenze,  1550,  translated  into 
Spanish  and  published  at  Zaragoza  in  1554,  and  (4) — by  far  the  most 
interesting  of  all — the  Breve  Parte  de  las  Hazanas  del  excelente  nom- 
brado  Gran  Capitdn  por  Hernan  Perez  del  Pulgar,  first  published  at 
Seville  in  1527,  and  better  known  in  the  excellent  little  edition  of 
Martinez  de  la  Rosa. 

These  volumes  of  the  Nueva  Biblioteca  de  Autores  Espanoles  have 
well  fulfilled  their  promise  and  we  wish  them  the  success  which  they  so 
richly  deserve. 

HUGO  A.  RENNERT. 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA.  U.S.A. 


The  Life  and  Works  of  Christobal  Sudrez  de  Figueroa.  By  J.  P. 
WICKERSHAM  CRAWFORD.  (Publications  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania;  Series  in  Romanic  Languages  and  Literatures, 
No.  1.)  Philadelphia,  Pa.  1907.  8vo.  159  pp. 

Suarez  de  Figueroa  is  remembered  chiefly  as  the  translator  of 
Guarini's  Pastor  Fido,  a  version  highly  praised  in  Don  Quixote ;  but  till 
recently  little  was  known  of  him  beyond  the  fact  that  he  returned 
thanks  by  sharply  criticizing  Cervantes,  and  other  prominent  contem- 
poraries, in  El  Passagero.  Mr  Crawford's  researches  confirm  the 
impression  that  Suarez  de  Figueroa  was  an  ill-conditioned,  querulous 
person,  and  they  supply  much  welcome  information  concerning  the 
writer.  Born  at  Valladolid  about  the  year  1571,  Suarez  de  Figueroa 
never  attained  the  popularity  to  which  he  thought  himself  entitled. 
This  is  not  altogether  surprising.  He  began  life  by  quarrelling  with 
his  family,  went  to  seek  his  fortune  in  Italy,  and,  in  the  intervals  of 
leisure  left  him  by'  his  legal  business,  cultivated  literature.  On  the 
death  of  his  parents  he  returned  to  Spain  in  1604,  fell  into  difficulties, 
started  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Santiago  de  Compostela,  quarrelled  with 
a  muleteer  near  Cuellar,  and  was  arrested  on  suspicion  of  having 
murdered  a  man  at  Valladolid.  The  charge  was  unfounded,  but  the 
incident  illustrates  Suarez  de  Figueroa's  facility  for  getting  into  hot 


426  Reviews 

water,  and  henceforward  he  was  constantly  at  warfare  with  his 
neighbours.  His  attitude  to  the  rest  of  the  world  is  visible  in  his 
works.  La  Constants  Amarilis  is,  indeed,  in  a  eulogistic  vein,  for  it 
commemorates  the  love-match  between  Juan  Andres  Hurtado  de 
Mendoza  (afterwards  Marques  de  Canete)  and  Dona  Maria  de  Cardenas. 
But  here  again  Suarez  de  Figueroa  invented  a  grievance.  He  joined 
Canete's  household  in  1609  (the  year  in  which  La  Constante  Amarilis 
was  published),  but  retired  in  1616,  complaining  that  his  patron  had 
not  rewarded  him  sufficiently.  He  duly  recorded  his  disappointment  in 
El  Passagero,  and,  when  the  second  edition  of  La  Espana  defendida 
was  issued  in  1644,  it  appeared  without  the  laudatory  stanza  in  honour 
of  Canete  which  had  embellished  the  first  edition  of  1612.  Few  were 
fortunate  enough  to  obtain  Suarez  de  Figueroa's  approval ;  Cervantes, 
Lope  de  Vega  and  Ruiz  de  Alarcdn  came  under  his  displeasure,  and  he 
seems  to  have  succeeded  at  last  in  uniting  all  the  literary  cliques  against 
him.  In  1622  he  returned  to  Italy,  became  Auditor  of  Lecce,  was 
dismissed  next  year,  and  was  appointed  later  Auditor  of  Catanzaro. 
Here,  as  might  be  expected,  he  again  got  in  trouble,  and — unfor- 
tunately for  himself — was  marked  down  by  the  Inquisition :  on  this 
curious  incident,  rather  creditable  than  otherwise  to  the  victim, 
Mr  Crawford's  investigations  throw  much  light.  Suarez  de  Figueroa 
appears  for  the  last  time  on  October  10,  1633,  when  he  signed  the 
aprobacidn  to  Gonzalo  de  Saavedra's  Los  Pastores  del  Betis ;  but  there 
is  reason  to  think  that  he  survived  till  1644,  or  a  little  later. 

Mr  Crawford  is  careful  to  say  that  Suarez  de  Figueroa  was  not 
a  great  writer,  but  is  inclined  to  '  honour  him  as  a  man  of  high  moral 
principles,  and  as  a  steadfast  champion  of  the  highest  literary  and 
political  ideals.'  It  may  be  so ;  Suarez  de  Figueroa  had  the  desperate 
courage  of  his  opinions,  and  a  concentrated  bitterness  of  expression  that 
is  often  telling;  yet  it  is  by  no  means  obvious  what  his  ideals  were. 
But,  apart  from  his  literary  importance,  the  present  excellent  monograph 
is  welcome :  it  places  the  author  in  his  exact  relation  to  his  contem- 
poraries, establishes  the  chief  events  in  his  troubled  life,  and  supplies 
a  bibliography  of  his  works — several  of  which  have  vanished. 

J.  FITZMAURICE-KELLY. 
LONDON. 


Les  Troubadours:  leurs  vies,  leurs  oeuvres,  leur  influence.     Par  JOSEPH 
ANGLADE.     Paris.     1908.     viii  +  323  pp. 

M.  Anglade,  who  is  already  known  as  the  author  of  an  excellent 
study  of  Giraut  Riquier,  the  last  of  the  troubadours,  has  produced  an 
attractive  introduction  to  Proven9al  lyric  poetry  in  this  book.  A  certain 
superficiality  of  treatment  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  book  is  the 
outcome  of  a  course  of  lectures  addressed  to  an  audience  which  possessed 
no  special  knowledge  of  the  subject.  The  book  is  thus  intended  to  appeal 
to  a  wider  circle  of  readers  than  provenfalistes  pure  and  simple,  and  this 


Reviews  427 

purpose  it  seems  well  adapted  to  perform.  Four  introductory  chapters 
deal  with  preliminary  matters,  the  difference  between  '  troubadour '  and 
'jongleur,'  the  technique  of  their  art  and  its  environment:  here,  also, 
M.  Anglade  refers  to  that  hoary  fiction  '  the  courts  of  love.'  The  several 
periods  of  troubadour  poetry  are  then  dealt  with  and  chapters  are 
devoted  to  the  troubadours  in  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal  and  Germany. 
An  excellent  feature  of  the  book  is  the  full  bibliography  to  each  chapter, 
which  should  prove  useful  to  any  who  wish  to  begin  the  study  of 
Proven9al.  We  note  one  or  two  omissions.  As  to  the  trobar  clus  (p.  54) 
reference  might  have  been  made  to  P.  Andraud's  thesis,  Quae  judicia  de 
litteris  fecerint  Provinciates,  Paris,  1902,  and  more  space  should  have 
been  given  to  the  subject  in  view  of  its  influence  upon  Dante's  theory 
of  style :  the  troubadour  Gavaudan  (A.  Jeanroy  in  Romania,  xxxiv, 
p.  497)  provides  excellent  examples  of  intentional  obscurity.  Pratsch's 
thesis  on  Folquet  de  Marselha  supports  the  impossible  view  that  the 
troubadour  and  the  bishop  were  different  persons :  reference  should 
have  been  made  to  Zingarelli's  La  personalita  storica  di  Folchetto  di 
Marsiglia,  Bologna,  1899.  In  reference  to  religious  poetry,  room  might 
have  been  found  for  a  mention  of  Peire  de  Corbiac's  hymn  to  the  Virgin, 
while  Dante  da  Majano's  sonnet  in  Proven9al  does  not  appear  in  the 
chapter  upon  Italy.  These,  however,  are  trivialities  and  the  book  can  be 
heartily  recommended  to  anyone  who  requires  a  general  introduction  to 
Proven9al  lyric  poetry. 

H.  J.  CHAYTOR. 
PLYMOUTH. 


Ovid    und    die    Troubadours.     Von    WILIBALD    SCHROTTER.      Halle : 
Niemeyer.     1908.     8vo.     Ill  pp. 

This  book  or  brochure,  within  the  limits  imposed  by  the  title, 
attempts  to  do  for  Ovid  what  Comparetti  did  for  Virgil  in  his  Virgil  in 
the  Middle  Ages.  Ovid's  influence  upon  medieval  literature  is  well- 
known  and  Herr  Schrotter  rightly  devotes  his  early  pages  to  an 
estimate  of  its  extent.  He  shows  that,  so  far  as  the  troubadours  were 
concerned,  Ovidian  influence  reached  them  indirectly  through  the 
schoolmen,  who  adopted  ideas  from  Ovid  for  literary  purposes  of  their 
own  and  thus  made  them  common  property.  Thus,  though  it  be 
granted  that  the  artificial  troubadour  poetry  was  developed  from 
a  popular  poetry,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  course  of  this  develop- 
ment was  influenced  by  the  learned  poetry  and  literary  culture  of  the 
middle  ages,  and  to  this  culture  Ovid  had  materially  contributed. 
Ovid's  influence  was 'also  immediate:  some  troubadours  were  doubtless 
able  to  read  his  works  in  the  original :  others  learned  his  mythology  and 
his  similes  at  second  hand  and  a  considerable  number  of  passages  can 
be  quoted  which  are  direct  imitations  of  Ovid's  language. 

The  difficulty  which  besets  literary  criticism  of  this  kind  is  to  decide 
whether  resemblances  are  apparent  or  real,  whether  they  belong  to  that 


428  Reviews 

group  of  ideas  which  will  naturally  occur  to  any  body  of  writers  who 
devote  attention  to  emotional  pathology,  or  whether  they  are  something 
more  than  coincidences.  The  present  question  is  further  complicated 
by  the  fact  that  ideas  derived  from  Ovid  certainly  formed  part  of  the 
literary  capital  of  the  middle  ages,  before  troubadour  poetry  had  been 
developed:  and  to  decide  whether  such  ideas,  as  they  appear  in  troubadour 
poetry,  were  borrowed  mediately  or  immediately  from  Ovid  or  whether 
they  occurred  independently  to  the  troubadour  mind,  seems  often  an 
insuperable  difficulty.  Herr  Schrotter  conscientiously  goes  through 
the  psychology  and  pathology  of  love,  displaying  a  wide  erudition  in 
the  performance  of  his  task  and  gives  a  large  number  of  passages  which 
may  undoubtedly  be  regarded  as  '  parallel.'  He  also  quotes  a  consider- 
able number  which  the  unprejudiced  observer  would  prefer  to  ascribe  to 
coincidence :  one  instance  will  serve  as  an  example.  Ovid,  Her.,  vn,  26 
'  Aenean  animo  noxque  diesque  refert '  is  placed  opposite  to  Bernart  de 
Ventadorn, '  domna,  cui  sopley  nueyt  e  dia ' :  to  call  this  '  eine  direkte 
Entlehnung'  (p.  45),  'eine  wb'rtliche  Nachahmung'  (p.  67)  is  sheer 
exaggeration.  The  phenomenon  of  the  sleepless  lover  might  be  paral- 
leled from  many  sources  in  both  ancient  and  modern  literature,  and  an 
unduly  large  number  of  the  passages  compared  are  of  this  character. 
The  obvious  differences  between  Ovid  and  the  Troubadours  are  well 
brought  out,  especially  as  regards  the  ennobling  character  of  love  in 
troubadour  poetry,  an  ideal  which  was  alien  to  Ovid.  Herr  Schrotter 
misses  a  point  when  he  quotes  'militat  omnis  amans  et  habet  sua 
castra  Cupido '  (p.  86).  Ovid  was  not  merely  using  a  military  metaphor, 
but  was  expressing  the  antimilitarist  sentiments  of  the  decadent 
aristocracy  for  whom  he  wrote :  antimilitarism  is  not  necessarily 
a  troubadour  characteristic.  There  are  few  misprints  in  the  book 
(peur  for  puer,  p.  44)  but  we  miss  a  few  footnotes :  '  Pelias'  lance,'  for 
instance,  might  have  been  credited  to  its  discoverer,  who  must  be 
sought  in  the  bibliography  at  the  beginning  of  the  book. 

H.  J.  CHAYTOR. 

PLYMOUTH. 

Tables  synoptiques  de  Phonologic  de  I'ancien  frangais.  Par  H.  E.  BER- 
THON  et  V.  G.  STARKEY.  Oxford:  Clarendon  Press,  1909. 
24  pp. 

It  was  a  bold  undertaking  to  offer  in  some  12  tables  and  24  pages 
a  conspectus  of  Old  French  phonology  and  much  labour  and  ingenuity 
have  been  required  in  its  execution.  The  work  is  offered  to  the 
beginner  in  Romance  languages  and  he  will  find  here  a  presentment 
more  precise  and  more  tangible  than  he  would  discover  elsewhere.  The 
large  pages  (12  inches  by  10),  neatly  divided  into  compartments,  present 
an  artful  array  of  the  beautiful  types  the  Clarendon  Press  has  at  its 
disposal.  Since  the  disposition  of  the  matter  is  geometric,  our  account 
of  it  shall  be  as  orderly  as  possible. 


Reviews  429 

Table  I.     (Voyelles  toniques,  libres.) 

The  twofold  development  of  Latin  e  and  1  to  oi  on  the  one  hand,  and 
to  ai  [e]  on  the  other,  is  not  made  sufficiently  clear ;  the  earliest  trace 
of  [e]  is  indeed  mentioned  but  the  change  might  seem  only  to  concern 
the  endings  of  the  imperfects  of  verbs,  while  the  change  of  Latin 
e  to  French  i  when  a  long  i  occurs  as  the  final  letter  of  the  form 
(e.g.  presi  >  pris)  is  hidden  away  among  the  paroxytona  at  the  end  of 
Table  IV.  It  is  impossible  to  compress  the  various  changes  Latin  a  has 
undergone  into  the  small  space  allotted  to  them  and  no  place,  apparently, 
is  found  for  the  special  French  ie  <  d  after  t,  d,  r,  s  (etc.  but  not  labials) 
when  the  preceding  syllable  contains  an  i ;  thus  the  many  Old  French 
infinitives  in  -ier,  nfr.  -er  find  no  mention.  This  rigid  condensation  led 
to  the  committal  of  a  serious  blunder,  the  remark  that  ai  occurs  as  an 
ascending  diphthong  in  the  Vie  de  Saint  Alexis',  the  editors  had  doubt- 
less in  their  notes  the  assonances,  pais  (<pacem):  paiast  (strophe  19) 
and  also  pais  (<  pagum  +  ensem} :  venir  (strophe  36)  and  the  desire  to 
be  brief  caused  a  confusion  of  the  two.  Following  each  table  are  a 
number  of '  remarques '  which  we  think  should  often  have  been  fuller ; 
thus  Thomas's  theory  of  -arius  >  ier  through  Germanic  influence  is 
accepted  without  the  reservation  that  the  change  of  quality  of  the 
vowel  is  perhaps  older  than  umlaut  in  German.  There  seems  to  be  no 
reason  why  umlaut  should  not  be  considered  as  a  French  phenomenon ; 
it  has  to  be  accepted  for  *illi  >  il,  *sesi  >  sis ;  again  remarque  2°  that 
Latin  a  between  palatals  becomes  i  seems  to  us  too  bald  seeing  that  we 
possess  clear  evidence  of  the  change  in  Popular  Latin  of  initial  ja-  to  je 
(Januari'us  >  Jenuarius ;  cf.  Italian  gennujo  and  ofr.  jenvier).  There 
appears  to  be  no  mention  of  ofr.  palatal  +-a  +  nasal,  and  in  the  '  remar- 
ques '  or  elsewhere  some  mention  should  have  been  made  of  ofr.  verb- 
forms  mui,  conui,  etc. 

Table  II.     (Voyelles  toniques,  entravees.) 

The  easier  that  contains  e  +  nasal  should  also  have  included  e  +  nasal 
and  also,  though  examples  are  rare,  a  case  of  d  -f  n  mouille  +  consonant 
might  have  been  given.  We  should  consider  too  that  in  d  +  n  mouille 
final,  it  is  inadvisable  to  quote  without  explanation  the  two  spellings 
coin  and  poing.  The  phrase  '  pendant  tout  le  moyen-age '  should  be 
used  sparingly ;  we  are  told,  for  example,  that  during  that  period  au  is 
a  descending  diphthong,  i.e.,  not  yet  reduced  to  o  and  still  spellings 
like  omosne,  obe  are  to  be  met  with.  The  most  likely  explanation  of 
e  +  I  +  consonant  >  eau  seems  to  be  that  a  glide  of  undetermined  value 
occurred  between  the  e  and  I  (as  in  Southern  English  milk)  and  that 
the  glide  only  became  a  when  I  became  u. 

Table  III.     Remarque  5°. 

The  'loi  de  Darmsteter'  should  not  have  been  made  shorter  than 
its  originator  intended  and  examples  of  the  persistence  of  a  vowel  other 
than  a  >  e  as  in  quadri-furcum  >  carrefour  should  have  been  given. 


430  Reviews 

Table  IV. 

In  the  development  of  the  type  tepidum  >  tiede,  we  think  that  a 
more  likely  explanation  is  the  '  balance  theory,'  according  to  which  the 
similarity  of  force  of  i  and  u  retained  the  penultimate  vowel  till  such 
time  as  e  had  become  ie.  This  theory  is  of  use  in  explaining  the 
various  forms  of  verbs  in  -icare  etc.,  such  as  ofr.  venches  <  vindicas  com- 
pared with  venjons  <  vindic-umus. 

Table  V. 

The  statement  that  c  [k]  may  be  seen  in  English  carry,  carpenter, 
'importes  en  Angleterre  par  voie  de  1'Anglo-norman/  would  seem  to 
suggest  that  in  agn.  initial  ca  remains  ca- ;  more  French  words  in 
English  from  initial  Latin  ca  have  ch-  than  c-,  e.g.,  chafe,  change, 
chamber,  etc. 

Table  VI. 

The  Latin  qu  seems  inadequately  summarised  and  not  very  clear : 
thus  we  find  ofr.  aive  side  by  side  with  nfr.  suivre  when  ofr.  sivre  would 
have  been  more  appropriate ;  it  seems  also  a  mistake  to  include  in  this 
same  easier  cuisine  <  cocina :  the  popular  Latin  forms  cocina  and  cocus 
(i.e.,  qu  already  simplified  to  c)  have  ample  justification,  the  latter  occurs 
in  the  Appendix  Probi. 

Table  VIII. 

Among  the  cases  of  the  omission  of/  before  o  and  u  it  is  a  mistake 
to  quote  ofr.  reuser1  <  *refusare;  the  correct  etymology  is  doubtless 
*retusare  from  retundo. 

Table  IX  B.     Casier  B. 

The  Germanic  influence  might  have  been  accounted  for  by  pointing 
out  that  Germanic  dialects  possessed  words  corresponding  to  gue,  guepe 
and  gdter2,  of  similar  meaning  and  with  initial  w,  viz.  ndl.  wadde, 
ohg.  luefsa  and  ivuosti ;  a  contamination  of  like  nature  might  also  serve 
to  explain  the  h  aspire  of  herse  as  there  was  certainly  a  Germanic  word 
cognate  with  English  harrow  (Gothic  *harwi).  We  heartily  recommend 
students  to  acquire  the  work  and  to  keep  it  in  a  place  of  easy  access. 
It  seems  a  pity  that  no  index  was  added.  Those  who  use  Suchier's 
Voyelles  toniques  know  what  a  great  improvement  the  French  indexed 
edition  is  on  the  original  German.  We  hope  that  a  second  edition  will 
contain  this  useful  change. 

A.  T.  BAKER. 

SHEFFIELD. 

1  Godefroy  quotes  many  examples  of  reuser  in  the  sense  of  '  drive  back '  but  none  in 
that  of  '  retire  ' ;  the  following  may  interest  readers. 

Quida  fantosme  avoir  trov£ 
Arriere  est  auques  reuse. 

[MS.  B.  M.  Add.  36614  f°  279  v°b.] 

2  Afr.  also  offers  a  pair  of  doublets  of  this  nature  ;  vimblet  and  guimblet  where  the  Latin 
verbs  are  *  vimbrare,  vimblare  <  vibrare  and  Germanic  weifen. 


Minor  Notices  431 


MINOR  NOTICES. 

All  who  are  interested  in  early  printing  or  in  the  Roman  de  la  Rose, 
will  welcome  the  recent  book  by  F.  W.  Bourdillon :  The  Early  Editions 
of  the  Roman  de  la  Rose  (1906).  This  splendidly  printed  volume  is  issued 
by  the  Bibliographical  Society,  and  bears  the  number  xiv  among  the 
publications  of  the  society.  The  author  subscribes  to  the  conclusions 
reached  by  M.  Claudin  in  his  excellent  treatise  with  regard  to  the  first 
three — and  not  four — editions.  He  has  been  able  to  date  more  closely 
than  heretofore  several  of  the  undated  editions,  and  does  this  mainly 
by  means  of  'internal,  or  textual,  comparison.'  It  must  be  said  that 
the  application  made  of  this  method  offers  every  appearance  of  care  and 
skill.  The  discussion  of  the  first  folios  (p.  13  et  ss.)  offers  a  good  example 
of  the  author's  method.  One  of  the  most  valuable  parts  of  the  book  is 
the  Description  of  the  Twenty-one  Editions  (p.  35  et  ss.).  Here  will  be 
found  in  the  space  of  a  little  more  than  thirty  pages  bibliographical 
information  worth  far  more  than  the  cost  of  the  entire  volume.  Typo- 
graphically, too,  one  can  but  praise  this  section  of  the  work.  A  surprising 
thing  about  the  fourteen  earliest  editions  is  stated  on  p.  147 :  they  all 
are  derived  from  one  original,  though  there  were  scores  and  scores  of 
manuscripts  from  which  various  readings  could  have  been  adopted.  The 
volume  closes  with  a  large  number  of  exact  reproductions  of  the  early 
cuts  (pp.  209-48). 

R.  W. 

This  volume  of  Select  Translations  from  Old  English  Prose,  edited 
by  Albert  S.  Cook  and  Chauncey  B.  Tinker  (Boston,  Ginn  &  Co.,  1908), 
is  a  companion  one  to  Cook's  Select  Translations  from  Old  English 
Poetry.  For  the  student  of  literature  it  is  not  of  much  value,  for 
unfortunately  Old  English  prose  is  an  almost  negligible  quantity  when 
considered  as  literature.  The  greater  number  of  the  extracts  are  trans- 
lations from  Old  English  translations  of  Latin  historians  or  homilists. 
Their  style  in  Old  English  is  artificial  and  unnatural  and  this  defect 
cannot  be  remedied  in  a  translation  yet  a  stage  further  removed  from 
the  original.  Least  satisfactory  are  the  selections  from  Bede's  History 
based  on  Giles'  translation.  The  language  is  highly  Latinised,  stilted 
and  unnatural.  Happiest  are  Professor  Cook's  own  translations  from 
Alfred's  preface  to  the  Pastoral  Care  and  his  fellow-editor's  translations 
from  Alfred's  Boethius. 

For  the  student-  of  history  and  of  Early  English  culture  the  book 
should  prove  most  useful  as  an  introduction  to  many  of  the  original 
authorities  for  pre-Conquest  days.  Here  the  notes  on  the  extracts  from 
the  Chronicle  might  have  been  fuller  and  the  extracts  from  Orosius 
dealing  with  the  voyages  of  Ohthere  and  Wulfstan  should  have  been 
given  in  extenso  both  for  their  intrinsic  merit  and  also  as  examples  of 


432  Minor  Notices 

genuine  native  English  prose.  Fuller  comment  on  the  rather  difficult 
geography  of  the  voyages  might  have  been  made  and  Alfred's  own 
account  of  the  Teutonic  peoples  should  have  been  included  in  the 
passages  selected. 

The  translations  which  read  most  easily  are  those  from  Aelfric,  who 
possesses  that  gift  of  colloquial  ease  which  was  denied  to  most  of  the 
writers  of  Old  English  prose.  A  word  of  praise  must  also  be  said  for 
the  translation  of  the  famous  Sermo  Lupi  ad  Anglos.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  forceful  pieces  of  prose  in  Old  English  literature  and  it  loses  little 
in  translation. 

A.  M. 

The  sole  fault  to  be  found  with  the  edition  of  Cinco  Novelas 
Ejemplares  of  Cervantes  in  the  Bibliotheca  Romanica  (Nos.  41 — 44. 
Strassburg,  J.  H.  E.  Heitz;  London,  Chatto  and  Windus,  1907)  is  that 
it  contains  only  five  of  the  Novelas  (La  Gitanilla,  Rinconete  y  Cortadillo, 
El  Celoso  Estremeno,  El  Casamiento  Enganoso  and  the  Coloquio  que 
paso  entre  Cipion  y  Berganza).  No  doubt  these  are  the  best  stories 
in  the  collection,  but  many  readers  will  regret  the  omission  of  El 
Licenciado  Vidriera.  A  complete,  handy  and  corrected  reprint  of  all 
twelve  is  a  desideratum,  and  no  one  is  more  competent  to  supply  it 
than  Sr.  D.  Rufino  Jose  Cuervo  who,  though  his  name  does  not  appear, 
is  evidently  responsible  for  the  present  issue.  The  introduction,  a 
model  of  laconic  presentation,  embodies  the  latest  results  of  research, 
and  the  text  is  naturally  based  on  the  first  edition  of  1613:  there 
exists  a  reprint  (containing  numerous  variants)  which  purports  to  have 
been  brought  out  at  Madrid  by  Juan  de  la  Cuesta  in  1614,  but  this 
appears  to  be  a  pirated  edition  put  on  the  market  by  Lisbon  publishers, 
and,  as  Cervantes  cannot  be  brought  into  relation  with  it,  Sr.  Cuervo 
is  obviously  right  in  disregarding  it.  Emendations  are  introduced 
sparingly,  and  with  excellent  judgment :  the  spelling  is  moderately 
modernized,  as  it  very  justifiably  may  be  in  a  popular  edition.  Some 
will  be  less  satisfied  with  respect  to  the  compromise  adopted  in  the 
matter  of  graphic  accentuation ;  naturally  enough,  Sr.  Cuervo  cannot 
reconcile  himself  to  such  forms  as  opinion  or  razon  in  a  text  of  the 
sixteenth  or  seventeenth  century;  but  perhaps  clavicimbano  (p.  151), 
halleme  (p.  188)  and  asi  (p.  204)  look  almost  as  much  out  of  place. 
This,  however,  is  chicanery.  '  1909 '  (p.  6)  is  obviously  a  misprint  for 
1609,  but  nothing  else  seems  to  have  escaped  correction.  This  little 
volume  may  be  most  cordially  recommended  to  all  students  of  Spanish 
literature. 

J.  F.-K. 


VOLUME  IV  JULY,  1909  NUMBER  4 


THE   'ANCREN   RIWLE.' 

UNDER  the  heading,  Die  Ancren  Riwle — ein  aus  angelsdchsischer 
Zeit  ilberliefertes  Denkmal,  Dr  W.  Heuser  in  the  Anglia  xxx,  103  sqq. 
calls  attention  to  MS.  Laud  Misc.  201  in  the  Bodleian,  a  seventeenth 
century  MS.  in  the  handwriting  of  W.  L'isle,  which,  besides  a  copy  of 
Eadwines  Canterbury  Psalter  (Trinity  College,  Cambridge),  contains 
certain  prayers  from  the  Ancren  Riwle,  taken,  as  L'isle  tells  us,  '  out 
of  the .  Nunnes  Rules  of  St  James  Order  in  Bennet  College  Library ' 
(i.e.,  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge).  Heuser  prints  these  prayers 
from  MS.  Laud  and  as  a  parallel  text  gives  the  corresponding  passages 
from  the  hitherto  unprinted  early  thirteenth  century  MS.  of  the  Ancren 
Riwle  in  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge  (MS.  402).  The  theory 
which  Heuser  puts  forward  is  that  the  prayers  in  the  Laud  MS.  are 
copied  from  a  lost  Ancren  Riwle  MS.  dating  from  the  transition  period 
from  Old  to  Middle  English,  and  that  this  lost  MS.,  like  the  other 
'modernised'  writings  of  that  period,  points  back  to  an  O.E.  original. 
He  says, '  Trotz  seiner  beschranktheit  ist  das  material  des  Laud-ms.  von 
der  grossten  wichtigkeit  fur  die  A.  R-forschung,  da  es  wenigstens  bis  in 
die  ags.  iibergangszeit  zuriickfuhrt,  wahrscheinlich  aber,  wie  alle  "  mo- 
dernisierten"  denkmaler  dieser  periode  auf  das  Ags.  selber  zuriickweist.' 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  actual  facts  point  in  quite  a  different 
direction,  and  I  think  it  admits  of  direct  proof  that  L'isle's  extracts 
were  copied  from  the  existing  early  thirteenth  century  MS.  C.C.C.  402, 
and  that  the  archaisms  on  which  Heuser  lays  such  stress  were  inten- 
tionally introduced  by  him1. 

For  convenience  of  reference  I  give  the  two  texts,  both  of  which  I 
have  myself  collated  with  the  MSS. 

1  I  do  not  urge  the  point — though  it  might  be  urged — that  it  is  unlikely  that  a  C.C.C. 
MS.,  carefully  guarded  as  these  MSS.  have  always  been,  should  have  been  lost,  or  that 
C.C.C.  should  have  been  in  possession  of  two  Ancren  Riicle  MSS.  which  agree  so  closely 
(except  for  the  archaisms)  in  wording  and  spelling. 

M.  L.  B.  IV.  28 


434 


The  'Ancren  Riwle' 


MS.  LAUD  Misc.  201 1  (fol.  264).        MS.  C.C.C.  402  (fol.  6b  bottom). 

To  ]>am  halgan  ]>rynnesse. 

Ealmihtig  god  •  feeder  •  suna  7  haelig 

gast  •  as  ge  beoff  ]>reo  an  god  •  ealswa 

ge  beoff  an  mihte  •  an  wisdom  •  7  an 
5  luue  •  7  J>eah  is  mihte  iturned  to  J>e 

in   halig  writ  •  uomeliche  >u  deore- 

wurffe  faader  •  to  ]>e  wisdom  sselig  suna  • 

to  )?e  luue  haelig  gast  •  geof  me  an  ael- 

mihtig  god  )>rile  on  ]>reo  hades  j>ses  ilce 
10  }>reo  thinges  •  mihte  ]>e  to  f?eowian  • 

wisdome  )>e  to  cwemian  •  luue  7  wil  to 

don  hit  •  mihte  -p  ic  mage  don  •  wisdom 

•p  ic  cunne  don  •  luue  $  ic  wulle  don 

aa  f  >e  is  leofest  •  as  J>u  eart  fulle  of 
15  euch  god  •  ealswa  nis  nan  god  wonne 

)>ere  as  )>eos  f>reo  beoff  •  mihte  •  wisdom  • 

7  luue  gemette  togederes  •  $  >u  getti 

me  >am  halig  Jjrinnesse  ic  ]>e  wurfcscipe 

of  |?reo  pater  nosfres. 


Almihti  godd  •  feader  •  sune  •  hali  gast  • 
as  36  beoff  f>reo  an  godd  •  alswa  36  beoff 
an  mihte  •  an  wisdom  •  7  an  luue  •  7  |?ah 
is  mihte  iturnd  to  \>e  in  hali  writ  norne- 
liche  •  Jm  deorewurffe  feader  •  to  >e  wis- 
dom seli  sune  •  to  J?e  luue  hali  gast  •  3ef 
me  an  almihti  godd  |>rile  i  )?reo  hades  • 
|?es  ilke  |>reo  Binges  •  rnihte  forte  serui  >e  • 
wisdom  forte  cweme  )>e  •  luue  7  wil  to 
don  hit  •  mihte  -J51  ich  mahe  don  •  wis- 
dom -p  ich  cunne  don  •  luue1  •)>  ich  wulle 
don  aa  -p  te  is  leouest  •  as  J>u  art  ful  of 
euch  god  .  alswa  nis  na  god2  wone  ]>er  as 
fjeose  }>reo  beoft  •  mihte  7  wisdom  •  7  luue 
iueiet  togederes.  -p  tu  3etti  me  ham  hali 
Jjrumnesse  i  J?e  wurffschipe  of  )>e  f>reo  pater 
nostres. 


20        To  Jjam  beelende  criste. 

La  ihesu  {?in  are  •  ihesu  for  mine  synnas 
ahongen  on  rode  •  for  f?as  ylca  tif  wun- 
das  \>e  >u  on  hire  bleddest  •  heal  mine 
blody  sawle  of  ealle  >a  synnas  $  heo 

25  is  wiS  gewundod  )>urh  mine  fif  wittes  i 
f>e  munigunge  of  ham  -p  hit  swa  mote 
beon  deorewurSe  hlaford  fif  pa^er  nos- 
tres  •  7  ct. 

An  otter. 

3o  For  {?a  seofeu  gyftas  \>sss  halgan  gastes 
-p  ic  ham  mote  hsebben  •  7  for  J>a  seofen 
tidas  f  hselig  kirc  singa>  •  f  ic  deale 
in  ham  slepe  ic  oS  wacige  •  7  for  j?a 
seofen  bonen  i  |>e  pa^er  iwster  ongean 

35  f>a  seofen  heaued  7  deadlice  synnan  • 
-p  >u  wite  me  wiS  ]>am  7  ealle  heora 
broces  •  and  geoue  me  J>a  seofene  seelig 
sedignysses  \>e  \>u  hlafoixl  hsefst  behaten 
\>\ne  gecorene  •  i  )>in  sedig  nome  seofen  • 

40  pater  nostres. 

An  oSer. 

For  )>a  tyn  heastes  >e  ic  gebrocen  haebbe 
summe  oSer  eall  •  7  me  seoluen  to  wart 
te  hwet  se  beo  of  o8er  hwet  untreowe- 
45  lice  i  teoheSet  i  bote  of  J?eos  brucken2 
for  te  sahtni  me  wis  j?e  deorewurCe 
hlaford  •  tyn  pater  •  nosfres. 

1  L'isle  uses  the  O.E.  3  both  for  3  and 
g.  I  render  it  by  g.  MS.  C.C.C.  distinguishes 
between  g  and  3. 

2  MS.  brucken,  the  k  altered  from  It. 


A  ihesu  ]>in  are  •  ihesu  for  mine  sunnen 
ahonget  o  rode  •  for  )?e  ilke  fif  wunden  >e 
{m  on  hire  bleddest  heal  mi  blodi  sawle 
of  alle  )>e  sunnen  $  ha  is  wiff  iwundet. 
purh  mine  fif  wittes  i  )>e  munegunge  of 
nani  ^  hit  swa  mote  boon  deorewurffe 
laumi  fif  pater  nos^res. 


For  t>e  seoue  3iftes  of  \>e  hali  gast  -b  ich 
ham  mote  habben  •  7  for  )>e  seoue  tiden 
f  hali  chirche  singeS  f  ich  deale  in  ham 
slepe  ich  offer  wakie  •  7  for  }>e  seoue3 
bouen  i  )?e  pater  uoster  a3ein  }>e  seouen 
heaued  7  deadliche  sunnen  •  -J5  tu  wite 
me  wiS  ham  7  alle  hare  brokes  •  7  3eoue 
me  jje  seouene4  selie  eadinesses  fje  J>u 
hauest  lauerd  bihaten  }>ine  icorene  i  \>in 
eadi  nome  seoue  pater  nos^res. 


For  }je  ten  heastes  {>e  ich  ibroken  habbe  • 
summe  ofier  alle  •  7  me  seoluen  towart  te 
hwet  se  beo  of  offer  hwet  untreoweliche 
iteoheffet  •  ibote  of  Jjeose  bruchen  forte 
sahtni5  me  wiff  }>e  deorewurge  lauerd  ten 
pater  uostres. 

1  $...luue  omitted  by  H. 

2  So  MS.,  H.  has  go[dl. 

3  So  MS.   .H.  seouen. 

4  So  MS.     H.  seoune. 

5  So  MS.,  H.  has  sahtin. 


ARTHUR   S.    NAPIER  435 

An  o|?er. 

For  \>e  wurSegunge  ihesu  crist  of  j?ine  pe  wurSgunge  ihesn  crist  of  jjine  tweof l 

50  tweolfen  apostolas  •  $  ic   mote  ofer  apostles  •  f  ich  mote  ouer  al  folhin  hare 

call   folgian   heora  lare    •  -p   ic   mote  lare  •  -{5  ich  mote  habben  Jmrh  hare  bo- 

hsebben  |mrh  heora  bonen  j?a  tweolfe  nen  \>e  tweolf  bohes  \>e  blowe)?  of  chearite 

bohes  \>e  blowej?  of  chserite  •  swa  seinte  as  seinte  pawel   writes  blisfule  lauerd 

pawel  writes  •  blisfull  hlaford  •  tweolf  tweolf  pater  nostres. 

55  pater  nostres. 

An  oSer. 

For  ealle  \>&  sawlen  \>e  beoS  forftfaren  i  For  alle  \>e  sawlen  J>e  beo5  forSfearen  i 
\>e  bileaue  of  ^a  feower  godspelles  •  f>e  J>e  bileaue  of  J>e  fowr  goddspelles  )>e  hal- 
healda);  call  cristendom  up  o  feower  deft  al  cristendom  up  o  fowr  halues  •  •£ 
eohealues  •  f  }m  j>a  feower  marhes  geoue  tu  J>e  fowr  marhe3euen2  3eoue  ham  in 
ham  in  heouene  mihtfulle  hlaford  feo-  heouene  •  milzfule3  lauerd  fowr  pater 
wer  pater  nostres.  nostres. 

1  So  MS.,  H.  has  tweos. 

2  MS.  marhejeuen,  but  the  jeuen  is  crossed 
through. 

3  So  MS.,  H.  has  miljfule. 

Heuser  bases  his  conclusion  as  to  the  age  of  the  MS.  from  which 
L'isle  copied  the  extracts  (1)  on  the  forms  of  the  letters  and  (2)  on  the 
language :  '  Das  alter  unserer  excerpte  wird  bewiesen  durch  die  fast 
ganz  ags.  schriftzeichen...ferner  durch  den  noch  fast  altenglischen  stand 
der  sprache  mit  erhaltenem  ce,  y,  ea,  eo,'  etc. 

The  first  point,  the  forms  of  the  letters  chosen  by  L'isle,  proves 
nothing.  He  had  just  finished  copying  Eadwines  Canterbury  Psalter, 
using  the  Anglo-Saxon  characters  for  his  transcript,  and  it  was  quite 
natural  that,  if  he  then  added  a  few  extracts  from  an  early  M.E.  MS., 
he  should  continue  to  use  the  same  form  of  letters  rather  than  suddenly 
change  and  try  to  imitate  the  forms  of  the  early  M.E.  hand. 

As  to  the  second  point,  the  language :  the  extracts  show,  it  is  true, 
a  curious  mixture  of  O.E.  and  thirteenth  century  forms — very  different 
from  the  ordinary  twelfth  century  transcripts  of  O.E.  originals — and  the 
most  natural  explanation  seems  to  be  that  the  "basis  was  a  thirteenth 
century  MS.,  and  that  the  archaisms  were  introduced  by  L'isle,  who 
evidently  possessed  a  knowledge  of  O.E.  considerable  for  his  time.  In 
1623  he  published,  with  a  translation,  ^Elfric's  Treatise  on  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  to  which  he  added  ^Elfric's  Easter  Homily,  etc.1  From 
his  introduction  to  this  we  learn  how,  after  his  preliminary  studies  in 
O.E.,  he  '  tooke  heart  to  put  forth  and  diue  into  the  deep  among  the 
meere  Saxon  monuments  of  my  worthily  respected  kinsman  Sir  H. 
Spelman,  my  honorable  friend  Sir  Rob.  Cotton,  and  of  our  Libraries 
in  Cambridge.'  I  believe  therefore  that  his  knowledge  of  O.E.  was 

1  Cp.  "Wiilker,  Grundriss,  p.  11.  I  may  add  that  this  edition  was  reissued  in  1638  with 
new  title-pages  as  Divers  ancient  monuments  in  the  Saxon  tongue. 

28—2 


436  The  'Ancren  Riwle' 

quite  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  introduce  the  archaisms  (frequently 
very  inaccurate1)  which  we  find  in  the  extracts  and  which  distinguish 
them  from  the  corresponding  passages  in  the  Corpus  Christi  College 
MS.  Where  the  forms  are  not  archaized,  the  two  MSS.  agree  remarkably 
even  in  details  of  spelling.  That  L'isle  rather  liked  trying  to  write  O.E. 
is  shown  by  his  providing  the  prayers  with  O.E.  headings — for  these 
are  obviously  his  additions — as  he  had  already  done  in  the  case  of  the 
Canticles  in  Eadwine's  Canterbury  Psalter2. 

In  one  instance  we  have  direct  proof  that  he  did  deliberately  alter : 
in  1.  45  of  the  extracts  he  first  wrote  bruchen,  as  in  the  Corpus  Christi 
College  MS.,  and  then,  apparently  remembering  that  ch  does  not  occur 
in  O.E.,  he  altered  the  h  to  k.  But  the  evidence  of  the  two  MSS. 
enables  us  to  go  further — they  afford  us  distinct  proof  that  MS.  C.C.C. 
402  was  the  very  MS.  from  which  L'isle  copied.  In  Morton's  edition 
p.  3017  MS.  Nero  A  14  reads :  \et  tu  \e  vour  moryiuen  (MS.  Cleopatra 
C  6  has  mare^euen)  jiue  ham  inne  heouene,  i.e.,  'that  thou  give  them 
the  four  morning-gifts3  in  heaven.'  MS.  C.C.C.  402  has  •)?  tu  ^e  fuwr 
marhe^euen  $eoue  ham  in  heouene,  but  the  $euen  has  been  crossed  through. 
As  originally  written  it  was,  of  course,  correct,  but  the  scribe,  or  some 
subsequent  reader,  not  understanding  it,  thought  that  "}euen,  which  is 
the  last  word  on  one  leaf,  and  yeoue,  which  is  the  first  word  on  the  next, 
were  accidental  repetitions  of  the  same  word,  so  he  crossed  the  first  out. 
L'isle,  seeing  it  crossed  out,  omitted  it  in  his  copy,  but  judging  that 
feower  ought  to  be  accompanied  by  a  plural,  changed  marhe  into  marhes: 
hence  the  reading  of  MS.  Laud,  ty  }>u  ]>a  feower  marhes  geoue  ham  in 
heouene. 

Further  evidence  in  the  same  direction  is  afforded  by  the  fact  that 
in  the  first  prayer  the  Corpus  Christi  College  MS.  has  the  form  alswa 
twice,  and  as  three  times,  and  L'isle  recognizing  alswa,  changed  it  each 
time  to  the  well-known  W.  Saxon  form  ealswa,  but  not  knowing  that 
as  is  merely  a  worn-down  form  of  the  same  word,  did  not  attempt  to 
archaize  it,  and  copied  it  as  as  in  all  three  instances.  I  think  that  this 
proves  that  all  the  available  evidence  does  not  take  the  Ancren  Riwle 
back  further  than  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century. 

ARTHUR  S.  NAPIER. 
OXFORD. 

1  The  writer  who  composed  the  heading  Geleafa  \ara  apostolas  was  quite  capable  of 
altering  of  alle  \>e  sitnnen  into  of  ealle  \>a  synnas,  1.  2-t.     Cp.  next  note. 

2  Sang  Esayes,  Sang  Ezechies  kyninges,  Geleafa  \>ara  apostolas.     Sang  gebletsod  Marian, 
&c.  Cp.  Wanley,  p.  100,  and  Wiilker,  Grundriss,  p.  13. 

3  The  gift  given  by  the  bridegroom  to  the  bride  on  the  morning  after  the  wedding. 
O.E.  morgengifu. 


THE  ELIZABETHAN   'TENNE   TEAGEDIES 

OF   SENECA.' 

THE  Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca  were  published  in  quarto  by  Thomas 
Marsh  in  1581,  and  were  dedicated  to  'Sir  Thomas  Henneage,  Treasurer 
of  the  Queen's  Chamber.'  The  volume  included  Hercules  Furens, 
Thyestes,  and  Troas,  translated  by  Jasper  Hey  wood ;  Hippolytus,  Medea, 
Agamemnon,  and  Hercules  (Etceus  by  John  Studley;  Thebais  by 
Thomas  Newton;  (Edipus  by  Alexander  Neville,  and  Octavia  by 
Thomas  Nuce.  It  was  published  under  the  editorship  of  Thomas 
Newton,  who  had  himself  contributed  the  Thebais.  Seven  out  of  the 
ten  plays  had  appeared  previously.  Heywood's  Troas  was  published 
in  octavo  in  1559,  and  his  Thyestes,  also  in  octavo,  in  the  next  year. 
Hercules  Furens  appeared  in  octavo  in  1561.  Neville's  (Edipus  was 
written  in  1560,  and  appeared  in  octavo  in  1563,  and  Nuce's  Octavia 
appeared  in  quarto  in  1566.  Studley's  Medea  and  Agamemnon  both 
appeared  in  octavo  in  1566.  The  collected  edition  of  1581  was 
reprinted  by  the  Spenser  Society  in  1887.  The  text  of  the  1581 
quarto  is,  in  the  main,  except  for  slight  differences  in  spelling  and 
punctuation,  the  same  as  that  of  the  separate  earlier  editions,  on 
which  it  is  evidently  based.  It  has,  however,  a  considerable  number 
of  misprints,  and  when  the  two  texts  differ,  the  reading  of  the  separate 
editions  is  generally  to  be  preferred.  The  text  of  Neville's  (Edipus 
in  the  1581  quarto  is  not,  however,  a  reprint  of  the  octavo  of  1563, 
but  is  an  independent  text,  revised  probably  by  Neville  himself.  New 
lines  are  inserted,  and  old  ones  re-written,  so  as  to  remove  faults  in  the 
metre  and  rhyme. 

Jasper  Heywood  was  the  younger  son  of  John  Heywood  the  epi- 
grammatist. He  was  born  in  1535,  and  sent  to  Oxford  in  1547.  In 
1554  he  was  elected  a  probationer  fellow  of  Merton  College,  but  in  1558 
he  was  obliged  to  resign,  and  late  in  the  same  year  he  was  elected  to 
a  fellowship  at  All  Souls'.  It  was  whilst  he  was  a  fellow  of  All  Souls' 
that  he  published  his  Senecan  translations,  which  were  the  earliest  to 
appear  of  the  Tenne  Tragedies.  He  was  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  after- 
wards resigned  his  fellowship  on  account  of  his  religion  and  left  England. 


438        The  Elizabethan  'Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

In  later  life  he  returned  to  England  as  superior  of  the  Jesuit  mission, 
and  was  imprisoned  for  seventeen  months.     He  died  at  Naples  in  1598. 

Heywood  seems  to  have  possessed  more  poetic  feeling  than  any  of 
his  fellow-translators.  I  should  unhesitatingly  pronounce  the  Troas  to 
be  the  finest  piece  of  work  among  the  Tenne  Tragedies.  Amid  all  the 
rant  and  fury  of  Hercules,  (Edipus,  Medea,  and  their  companions,  the 
scene  between  Andromache,  her  little  son,  and  Ulysses  in  Act  in  of 
the  Troas  is  conspicuous  for  its  tenderness  and  pathos,  and  though  this 
may  be  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  the  play  itself  is  one  of  Seneca's 
best,  credit  must  be  given  to  Hey  wood's  judgment  in  selecting  it  for 
his  first  attempt.  '  I  have,'  he  says  in  his  preface,  '  privately  taken  the 
part  which  pleased  me  best  of  so  excellent  an  author,  for  better  is  tyme 
spent  in  the  best  then  other.' 

Heywood's  style  is  much  more  free  from  words  of  a  colloquial, 
dialectal,  or  archaic  character  than  that  of  Studley,  Nuce,  or  Newton. 
His  English  is  on  the  whole  that  of  the  ordinary  Elizabethan  translator, 
though  he  has  some  striking  Latinisms,  such  as  '  freate,'  '  frete '  = '  sea ' 
(Lat.  /return),  and  '  roge '  = '  funeral  pyre '  (Lat.  rogus),  which  in  one 
passage  (Troas,  I,  81  (99  a))  has  been  misunderstood  by  the  printer  and 
appears  as  '  rage.' 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  change  in  Heywood's  attitude  as  a 
translator  towards  his  original.  In  the  Troas,  the  earliest  of  his  three 
translations,  he  dealt  with  it  very  freely,  adding  a  chorus  of  sixty  lines 
of  his  own  invention  at  the  end  of  Act  I,  a  new  scene  consisting  of 
a  speech  of  ninety-one  lines  by  the  ghost  of  Achilles  at  the  beginning 
of  Act  II,  and  three  additional  stanzas  at  the  end  of  the  chorus  which 
concludes  Act  II.  He  also  substituted  a  chorus  of  his  own  for  the 
Senecan  chorus  at  the  close  of  Act  ill.  In  his  preface  '  To  the  Reader ' 
in  the  edition  of  1559,  Heywood  speaks  of  these  alterations  in  the 
following  terms : 

Now  as  concerninge  sondrye  places  augmented  and  some  altered  in  this  my 
translation.  First  forasmuch  as  this  worke  seemed  unto  mee  in  some  places 
unperfite,  whether  left  so  of  the  Author,  or  parte  of  it  loste,  as  tyme  devoureth 
all  things,  I  wot  not,  I  have  (where  I  thought  good)  with  addition  of  myne  owne 
Penne  supplied  the  wante  of  some  thynges,  as  the  firste  Chorus,  after  the  fyrste 
acte...Also  in  the  seconde  Acte  I  have  added  the  Speache  of  Achilles  Spright, 
rysing  from  Hell  to  require  the  Sacrifyce  of  Polyxena.-.Agayne  the  three  laste  staves 
of  the  Chorus  after  the  same  Acte  :  and  as  for  the  thyrde  Chorus  which  in  Seneca 
beginneth  thus,  Que  vocat  sedes  ?  For  as  much  as  nothing  is  therein  but  a  heaped 
number  of  farre  and  strauuge  Countries,  considerynge  with  my  selfe,  that  the  names 
of  so  manye  unknowen  Countreyes,  Mountaynes,  Descries,  and  Woodes,  shoulde 
have  no  grace  in  the  Englishe  tounge,  but  bee  a  straunge  and  unpleasant  thinge 
to  the  Readers  (excepte  I  should  expound  the  Historyes  of  each  one,  which  would 
be  farre  to  tedious,)  I  have  in  the  place  thereof  made  another  beginninge  in  this 


EVELYN    M.    SPEARING  439 

manner.  O  love  that  leadst,  etc.  Which  alteration  may  be  borne  withall,  seynge 
that  Chorus  is  no  part  of  the  substaunce  of  the  matter.  In  the  rest  I  have  for  my 
slender  learninge  endevored  to  keepe  touch  with  the  Latteu,  not  worde  for  worde  or 
verse  for  verse,  as  to  expounde  it,  but  neglectynge  the  placinge  of  the  wordes, 
observed  their  sence. 

In  the  Thyestes  Heywood  has  only  added  one  original  speech,  the 
soliloquy  of  Thyestes  at  the  close  of  the  play,  in  which  the  unhappy 
father  invokes  on  himself  all  the  torments  of  hell. 

In  the  Hercules  Far  ens,  published  in  1561,  there  is  no  addition  of 
original  matter,  and  it  is  clear  from  the  character  of  the  translation 
itself  that  Heywood  no  longer  '  endevored  to  keepe  touch  with  the 
Latten,  not  worde  for  worde  or  verse  for  verse,  but  neglectynge  the 
placinge  of  the  wordes,  observed  their  sence,'  but  that  his  aim  was 
to  reproduce  the  Latin  much  more  closely.  On  the  title-page  he  states, 
first  in  Latin,  then  in  English,  that  the  tragedy  is  '  newly  perused  and 
of  all  faultes  whereof  it  did  before  abound  diligently  corrected,  and  for 
the  profit  of  young  schollers  so  faithfully  translated  into  English  metre, 
that  ye  may  se  verse  for  verse  tourned  as  farre  as  the  phrase  of  the 
English  permitteth.' 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  this  change  in  Heywood's  method  of 
translation  was  really  beneficial  to  his  work.  In  striving  to  keep  the 
Latin  order  of  words,  his  English  becomes  clumsy  and  frequently 
obscure,  e.g.,  Here.  Fur.,  II,  43,  44  (5  a)1 : 

Nor  handes  that  well  durst  enterprise,  his  noble  travayles  all 
The  filthy  labour  made  to  shrynke  of  foul  Augias  hall, 

where  '  labour '  is  the  nominative,  and  '  handes '  the  accusative.  Or 
Here.  Fur.,  in,  251—254  (13  a): 

As  great  as  when  comes  hour  of  longer  night, 
And  willing  quiet  sleepes  to  be  extent, 
Holds  equall  Libra  Phoebus  Chariots  light, 
A  sorte  the  secrete  Ceres  doe  frequent, 

where  the  meaning  is  difficult  to  grasp  without  the  Latin : 

quanta,  cum  longae  redit  hora  nocti 
crescere  et  somnos  cupieris  quietos 
Libra  Phoebeos  tenet  aequa  currus, 
turba  secretarn  Cererem  frequentat. 

The  attempt  to  reproduce  exactly  Latin  constructions  is  not  always 
very  happy,  e.g.,  Here.  Far.,  II,  82 — 84 : 

...and  beaten  with  thy  stroake 

The  mount,  now  here,  now  there  fell  downe  :  and  rampier  rente  of  stay, 
The  raging  brooke  of  Thessaly  did  roon  a  newe  found  way 

1  All   quotations   are   taken   from   the   quarto   edition   of  1581.     The  references  in 
brackets  are  to  the  pages  of  that  edition. 


440        The  Elizabethan  'Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

where  the  last  clause  is  an  attempt  to  follow  the  Latin : 

et  rupto  aggere 
nova  cucurrit  Thessalus  torrens  via ; 

and  Here.  Fur.,  n,  182,  183  (7  a) : 

...what  should  I  the  mothers  speake 
Both  suffring,  and  adventring  gyltes  1 

which  represents  the  Latin  : 

...quid  matres  loquar 
passas  et  ausas  scelera  ? 

and  Here.  Fur.,  in,  308,  309  (14  a) : 

Hee  over  Foordes  of  Tartare  brought 
Keturnde  appeased  beeinge  Hell, 

which  represents : 

Transvectus  vada  Tartari 
pacatis  redit  inferis. 

This  close  attention  to  the  construction  of  the  original  has  influenced 
Heywood's  metre,  for  the  attempt  to  represent  one  Latin  line  by  one 
English,  whilst  keeping  the  Latin  order  of  words,  has  resulted  in  much 
enjambement,  and  in  a  consequent  placing  of  the  caesura  earlier  in  the 
line  than  is  its  normal  position.  One  passage  from  Megara's  speech  at 
the  beginning  of  Act  II  (n,  3 — 10  (4  b))  will  illustrate  this : 

...To  mee  yet  never  day 

Hath  careles  shin'de :   the  ende  of  one  affliction  past  away 
Beginning  of  an  other  is  :   an  other  ennemy 
Is  forthwith  founde,  before  that  hee  his  joy  full  family 
Retourne  unto,  an  other  fyght  hee  taketh  by  behest : 
Nor  any  respite  given  is  to  him  nor  quiet  rest : 
But  whyle  that  he  commaunded  is  :   straight  him  pursueth  shee 
The  hatefull  luno. 

The  extent  of  the  alteration  produced  in  Heywood's  rhythm;1  may  be 
gauged  from  the  different  proportion  of  lines  with  the  main  paVise  after 
the  second  or  third  foot  to  be  found  in  the  Hercules  Furens  as  compared 
with  the  Troas.  Metrically,  the  ear  requires  the  caesura  after  the 
fourth  foot,  and  there  is  usually  a  slight  pause  at  that  place,  but  the 
main  pause  (or,  as  it  may  be  called,  the  logical  caesura  as  distinct  from 
the  metrical)  often  occurs  earlier  in  the  line,  and  in  the  Troas  the 
proportion  of  lines  in  which  it  is  to  be  found  after  the  second  foot  is 
under  six  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  fourteeners,  whilst  in  the 
Hercules  Furens  it  is  over  twenty-two  per  cent.  Again,  in  the  Troas 
the  number  of  lines  with  the  logical  caesura  after  the  third  foot  is 


EVELYN   M.    SPEARING  441 

under  two  per  cent,  whilst  in  the  Hercules  Furens  it  is  over  six  per 
cent.  Thus  in  the  latter  play,  the  number  of  normal  lines  in  which  the 
logical  and  metrical  caesuras  coincide  in  falling  after  the  fourth  foot, 
has  enormously  decreased. 

John  Studley,  unlike  Heywood,  but  like  Neville  and  Nuce,  was 
a  Cambridge  scholar.  The  date  of  his  birth  is  not  certain,  but  it  must 
have  been  about  1545.  He  came  up  to  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  in 
1561,  and  took  his  B.A.  in  1566  and  M.A.  in  1570,  being  elected  to 
a  fellowship  in  the  interval  between  the  two  degrees.  His  Agamemnon 
and  Medea  were  published  in  1566,  the  year  in  which  he  took  his  B.A. 
In  the  Stationers'  Register  for  1566-67  there  is  also  an  entry  '  Recevyd 
of  Henry  Denham  for  his  lycense  for  ye  pryntinge  of  the  iiijth  parte  of 
Senecas  Workes,'  and  it  has  been  conjectured  that  this  was  Studley 's 
translation  of  the  Hippolytus — the  fourth  and  '  most  ruthful  tragedy ' 
as  it  is  called  in  the  1581  edition — though  no  copy  of  this  separate 
edition  is  extant.  The  date  of  Studley 's  translation  of  the  Hercules 
(Etaeus  is  not  known. 

Studley 's  poetical  style  differs  widely  from  that  of  Heywood.  The 
diction  of  his  four  translations  is  extremely  interesting;  there  is 
a  homely  and  popular  character  about  it  which  is  quite  foreign  to 
Heywood's,  though  we  find  it  again  in  some  measure  in  Newton's 
Thebais,  included  among  the  Tenne  Tragedies.  Studley  appears  to 
have  had  very  little  sense  of  humour,  and  he  frequently  falls  into  bathos 
exactly  in  the  passages  where  he  wishes  to  be  impressive,  but  there 
is  an  extraordinary  amount  of  vigour  in  his  style.  It  seems  sometimes 
as  if  the  mantle  of  the  old  alliterative  poets  had  fallen  upon  him ; 
he  has  the  same  love  of  heaped-up  epithets,  the  same  affection  for 
redundancy,  the  same  delight  in  alliteration. 

His  metre  is  worthy  of  notice  on  one  or  two  points.  He  employs 
the  fourteener,  the  decasyllabic  rhyming  alternately  (which  cannot  be 
called  the  heroic  or  elegiac  quatrain  in  this  case,  for  there  is  no  pause  at 
the  end  of  the  quatrain),  the  alexandrine,  and  the  '  poulter's  measure/ 
being  the  only  one  of  the  translators  to  attempt  the  two  latter  metres. 
His  success,  especially  with  the  fourteener  and  the  decasyllabic,  which 
are  his  favourite  metres,  is  not  very  remarkable,  and  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  his  ear  was  not  sometimes  at  fault.  One  or  two  examples 
may  be  given  of  the  effect  produced  by  his  curious  handling  of  the 
caesura  in  the  fourteener: 

The  ruthfull  ruin  of  our  natyve  countrey  wee  behelde. 

Ag.,  m,  270  (152  a). 


442       The  Elizabethan  'Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

Nor  as  it  were  with  Osir  hill  that  cloven  were  in  twayne 
Nor  with  the  swav  of  all  the  rnountayne  falling  am  I  slayne 

Here.  (EL,  iv,  42,  43  (206  a) ; 

and  one  or  two  examples  also  of  his  use  of  extra  unstressed  syllables : 

Among  the  vulgar  sorte,  another  in  private  simple  bowers. 

Aff.,  n,  225  (146  a). 

My  corpulent  Carkas  is  consumde  of  Hercules  every  lim. 

Here.  (Et.  iv,  118  (207  a). 

Why  dost  thou  slake  thy  frying  fits  ?   this  mallady  still  survive. 

Here.  (Et.  n,  99  (193  b). 

Doth  heare  the  noyse  whyle  Hercules  with  mettall  of  yellow  hew. 

Ag.,  iv,  74  (155  b). 

Studley  sometimes  employs  a  feminine  ending  to  the  fourteener, 
with  not  very  striking  success,  e.g., 

I  render  you  to  tyrants  kings,  bugges,  beasts,  and  grysely  divells 
By  taking  him  away  that  should  revenge  you  of  these  evilles. 

Here.  (Et.,  in,  174,  175  (201  b,  202 a). 

When  of  her  deare  and  tender  brattes  she  wholly  was  bereven 
And  did  bewayle  with  strayned  sighes  her  children  seven  and  seven, 

Here.  (Et.,  v,  267,  268  (216  a). 

The  ten-syllable  line  did  not  always  fare  very  well  in  Studley's 
hands.  I  give  one  example  from  a  Chorus  containing  many  irregularities, 
but  too  long  to  be  quoted  in  full : 

Wee  stand  not  in  our  razed  countrey  wall, 
Whose  ground  shall  now  bee  overgrowne  (alas) 
With  bramble,  and  bryer,  and  down  the  temples  fall : 
While  muckv  sheepecotes  are  planted  in  their  place. 

Here.  (Et.,  I,  151—154  (190  a). 

Studley's  dramatic  powers  and  his  sense  of  poetic  fitness  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  of  a  high  order.  His  translations  offer  more 
examples  of  bathos  than  any  of  the  others  included  in  the  Tenne 
Tragedies.  It  is  difficult  to  make  a  selection  where  the  choice  is  so 
wide,  but  the  following  lines  may  be  quoted  from  Cassandra's  vision 
of  the  murder  of  Agamemnon  (Ag.,  v,  15 — 26  (156  a)): 

The  King  in  gorgyous  royall  robes  on  chayre  of  State  doth  sit, 

And  pranckt  with  pryde  of  Pryams  pomp  of  whom  he  conquerd  it. 

Put  of  this  hostile  weede,  to  him  (the  Queene,  his  Wyfe  gan  say,) 

And  of  thy  loving  Lady  wrought  weare  rather  thys  aray. 

This  garment  knit.     It  makes  mee  loth,  that  shivering  heere  I  stande. 

0  shall  a  King  be  murthered,  by  a  banisht  wretches  hande  ? 

Out,  shall  th'adulterer  destroy  the  husbande  of  the  Wyfe  ? 

The  dreadfull  destinies  approcht,  the  foode  that  last  in  lyfe 

He  tasted  of  before  his  death,  theyr  maysters  bloud  shall  see, 

The  gubs  of  bloude  downe  dropping  on  the  wynde  shall  powred  bee. 

By  trayterous  tricke  of  trapping  weede  his  death  is  brought  about, 

Which  being  put  upon  his  heade  his  handes  coulde  not  get  out. 


EVELYN    M.    SPEARING  443 

After  an  interview  with  Jason,  Medea  is  made  to  say : 

What  is  he  slily  slypt  and  gon  ?  falles  out  the  matter  so  ? 

0  lason  dost  thou  sneake  away,  not  having  minde  of  mee, 

Nor  of  those  former  great  good  turnes  that  I  have  done  for  thee  ? 

Medea,  in,  273—275  (131  a). 

Hercules,  when  recalling  his  former  prowess,  exclaims : 

1  that  returnde  from  dennes  of  death,  and  Stigian  strearne  defyed 
And  ferryed  over  Lethes  lake,  and  dragd  up,  chaind,  and  tyde 
The  tryple  headded  rnastiffe  hownd,  when  Tytans  teeme  did  start 
So  at  the  ougly  sight  that  he  fel  almost  from  his  cart. 

Here.  (Et.,  iv,  34—37  (206  a). 

It  seems  unkind  to  dwell  on  Studley's  poetical  failings.  He  is 
certainly  no  great  poet,  but  occasionally  he  has  some  fine  lines.  In  the 
last  scene  of  the  Hippolytus  the  Chorus  says  (Hipp,  v,  116  (74  b)): 

O  Theseus  to  thy  plaint  eternall  tyme  is  graunted  thee, 
and  there  is  pathos  in  Theseus'  cry  over  the  dead  body  of  his  son : 

Lo  I  euioy  my  fathers  gift,  0  solitarinesse. 

Such  lines  however  are  rare,  and  the  chief  attractions  of  Studley's 
verse  seem  to  be  its  quaintness  and  its  exuberance.  Both  these  qualities 
have  been  exemplified  in  the  quotations  already  given,  but  one  quotation 
more  may  be  adduced,  from  the  description  of  Medea  practising  her 
magic  arts : 

She  mumbling  coniures  up  by  names  of  ills  the  rable  rout, 
In  hugger  mugger  cowched  long,  kept  close,  unserched  out : 
All  pestlent  plagues  she  calles  upon,  what  ever  Libie  lande, 
In  frothy  boyling  stream  doth  worke,  or  muddy  belching  sande  : 
What  tearing  torrents  Taurus  breedes,  with  snowes  unthawed  still 
Where  winter  flawes,  and  hory  frost  knit  hard  the  craggy  hill, 
She  layes  her  crossing  hands  upon  each  monstrous  coniurde  thing, 
And  over  it  her  magicke  verse  with  charming  doth  she  sing  : 
A  mowsie,  rowsie,  rusty  route  with  cancred  Scales  Iclad 
From  musty,  fusty,  dusty  dens  where  lurked  long  they  had 
Doe  craull... 

Medea,  iv,  15—25  (133  a). 

With  regard  to  Studley's  treatment  of  his  original,  it  may  be 
noted  that  in  no  play  has  he  made  such  extensive  alterations  as  were 
effected  by  Heywood  in  the  Troas,  whilst  on  the  other  hand  he  nowhere 
follows  the  Latin  as  closely  as  Heywood  does  in  the  Hercules  Fur  ens. 
His  chief  additions  of  original  matter  are  in  the  Medea,  I,  97 — 172 
(121 — 122  a),  where  he  substitutes  a  Chorus  of  his  own  for  the  Senecan 
Chorus,  the  Agamemnon  (v,  185 — 256  (159  b — 160  b)),  where  he  adds 
a  speech  by  Eurybates  in  which  the  death  of  Cassandra,  the  flight 
of  Orestes,  and  the  imprisonment  of  Electra  are  narrated,  and  the 


444       The  Elizabethan  'Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

Hippolytus  (v,  25 — 44  (73  b)),  where  he  introduces  a  curious  passage 
in  which  Phaedra  implores  the  spirit  of  Hippolytus  to  take  her  living 
body  in  exchange  for  his  own  mutilated  corpse. 

In  general,  Studley  follows  the  meaning  of  the  Latin  fairly  closely, 
but  does  not  try  to  reproduce  the  Latin  order  as  Heywood  does,  and  he 
frequently  expands,  and  explains  wherever  he  considers  it  necessary, 
e.g.,  where  Seneca  makes  Medea  say  of  Jason: 

merita  contempsit  mea 
qui  scelere  flammas  viderat  vinci  et  mare? 

Studley  has  (Medea  n,  7—14  (122  a)) : 

0  hath  he  such  a  stony  heart,  that  doth  no  more  esteeme, 
The  great  good  turnes,  and  benefits  that  I  imployde  on  him  1 
Who  knowes  that  I  have  lewdly  used  enchauntments  for  his  sake, 
The  rigour  rough,  and  stormy  rage,  of  swelling  Seas  to  slake. 
The  grunting  firy  forning  Bulles,  whose  smoking  guts  were  stuft, 

With  smoltring  fumes,  that  from  theyr  lawes,  and  Nosthrils  out  they  puft. 

1  stopt  their  gnashing  mounching  mouths,  I  quencht  their  burning  breath, 
And  vapors  hot  of  stewing  paunch,  that  els  had  wrought  his  death. 

In  one  or  two  cases  it  seems  evident  that  Studley  has  mistranslated 
the  Latin  through  haste  or  carelessness,  e.g.,  in  Ag.,  in,  17,  18  (149  a) 
he  translates  Seneca's : 

tu  pande  vivat  coniugis  frater  mei 
et  pande  teneat  quas  soror  sedes  mea 

by: 

Declare  if  that  my  brothers  wyfe  enioy  the  vytall  ayre 
And  tel  me  to  what  kind  of  Coast  my  sister  doth  repayre. 

In  Here.  (Et.,  in,  188  (202  a) : 

Xocens  videri  qui  petit  mortem  cupit 
is  represented  by : 

He  doth  condemne  himselfe  to  dye  that  needes  wil  guylty  seeme. 

Alexander  Neville  was  born  in  1544,  and  translated  the  (Edipus 
in  his  sixteenth  year,  according  to  his  preface  to  Dr  Wotton.  He  was 
acquainted  with  George  Gascoigne,  and  was  one  of  the  five  friends 
whom  Gascoigne  describes  as  challenging  him  to  write  poems  on  Latin 
mottoes  proposed  by  themselves.  He  became  secretary  to  Archbishop 
Parker,  and  remained  in  the  service  of  Parker's  successors,  Grindal  and 
Whitgift.  In  1575  he  published  a  Latin  account  of  Kett's  rebellion  of 
1549,  and  in  1587  there  appeared  Academiae  Cantabrigiensis  lacrymae 
tumulo...P.  Sidneii  sacratae  per  A.  Nevillum. 


EVELYN   M.    SPEARING  445 

The  (Edipus  is  a  creditable  performance,  considering  the  translator's 
youth,  but  it  is  difficult  to  agree  with  Warton's  judgment  in  his 
description  of  the  Tenne  Tragedies,  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Spenser  Society's  reprint  of  1881,  that  '  it  is  by  far  the  most  spirited 
and  elegant  version  in  the  whole  collection,  and  it  is  to  be  regretted 
that  he  did  not  undertake  all  the  rest.'  It  does  not  show  any  striking 
marks  of  poetic  power,  and  in  places  the  metre  is  very  faulty.  Neville 
has  a  tendency  to  expand  his  original  in  the  non-choric  portions,  and 
to  add  unnecessary  reflections.  Thus  he  enlarges  CEdipus'  last  speech 
((Ed.,  v,  194 — 246  (94  a))  from  20  lines  to  52  by  making  such  additions 
as  the  following : 

O  CEdipus  accursed  wretch,  lament  thine  owne  Calamity, 
Lament  thy  state,  thy  griefe  lament,  thou  Caitife  borne  to  misery. 
Where  wilt  thou  now  become  (alas  ?)  thy  Face  where  wilt  thou  hyde  : 
0  myserable  Slave,  canst  thou  such  shamefull  tormentes  byde  ? 

After  the  messenger's  description,  a  little  earlier  in  the  same  act,  of 
CEdipus'  despair  and  plucking  out  of  his  eyes,  Neville  puts  these  moral 
lines  into  the  messenger's  mouth : 

Beware  betimes,  by  him  beware,  I  speake  unto  you  all. 
Learne  Justice,  truth,  and  feare  of  God  by  his  unhappy  fall. 

(Ed.,  v,  99,  100  (92  b). 

In  the  choruses  Neville  has  made  considerable  alterations.  He  has 
expanded  the  chorus  in  the  first  act  from  ninety-two  lines  to  a  hundred 
and  seventeen,  whilst  he  has  entirely  omitted  the  chorus  of  a  hundred 
and  six  lines  in  praise  of  Bacchus  at  the  close  of  Act  II.  He  has 
replaced  the  chorus  of  fifty-five  lines  in  Act  in  by  a  new  chorus  of 
twenty-two  lines  dealing  with  a  different  subject,  and  similarly  in 
Act  IV  has  substituted  a  short  original  chorus  of  fourteen  lines  for  the 
Senecan  one  of  thirty  lines.  The  chorus  in  Act  V  is  substantially  the 
same  as  Seneca's,  though  Neville,  who  has  a  liking  for  moral  maxims, 
adds  four  lines  quite  in  the  Senecan  manner : 

And  thou  that  subject  art  to  death.     Regard  thy  latter  day. 
Thinke  no  man  blest  before  his  ende.     Advise  thee  well  and  stay. 
Be  sure  his  lyfe,  and  death,  and  all,  be  quight  exempt  from  mysery : 
Ere  thou  do  once  presume  to  say:   this  man  is  blest  and  happy. 

(Ed.,  v,  118—121  (92  b). 

Thomas  Nuce  or  Newce,  as  his  name  is  sometimes  spelt,  was  in 
1562  a  fellow  of  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge.  He  was  afterwards 
rector  of  Cley  in  Norfolk,  and  held  several  other  livings  before  his 
death  in  1617.  The  hundred  and  seventy  lines  of  English  verse 
prefixed  to  the  1566  edition  of  Studley's  Agamemnon  were  written  by 


446       The  Elizabethan  'Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

Nuce,  whose  Octavia  appeared  in  the  same  year.  The  Octavia  is  an 
interesting  play,  both  for  its  metre  and  language.  Unlike  the  rest  of 
the  Tenne  Tragedies,  it  does  not  employ  the  fourteener  at  all.  Nuce 
apparently  perceived  that  the  fourteener  was  by  no  means  an  ideal 
metre  for  tragedy,  and  he  had  the  courage  to  discard  it,  and  to  use 
in  its  place  the  five-foot  or  decasyllabic  line  rhyming  in  couplets, 
occasionally  in  triplets,  and  the  octosyllable  rhyming  alternately.  In 
Nuce's  hands,  as  in  those  of  other  Elizabethans,  the  decasyllabic  couplet 
produces  a  totally  different  effect  from  the  '  heroic  couplet '  of  Dryden 
and  Pope,  though  it  is  identically  the  same  in  structure,  except  that 
it  has  no  regular  pause  at  the  close  of  the  couplet.  A  passage  from 
Oct.,  I,  55 — 67  (162  b)  will  illustrate  Nuce's  use  of  this  metre : 

Lo  see  of  late  the  great  and  mighty  stocke, 
By  lurking  Fortunes  sodayne  forced  knocke, 
Of  Claudius  quite  subvert  and  cleane  extinct : 
Tofore,  who  held  the  world  in  his  precinct ; 
The  Brittayne  Ocean  coast  that  long  was  free, 
He  ruld  at  wil,  and  made  it  to  agree, 
Their  Komaine  Gallies  great  for  to  embrace. 
Lo,  he  that  Tanais  people  first  did  chase, 
And  Seas  unknowen  to  any  Romayne  wight 
With  lusty  sheering  shippes  did  overdight, 
And  safe  amid  the  savage  freakes  did  fight, 
And  ruffling  surging  seas  hath  nothing  dread, 
By  cruel  spouses  gilt  doth  lye  all  dead. 

The  following  passage  illustrates  Nuce's  use  of  the  octosyllable 
(Oct.,  I,  574—581  (171  a)): 

The  flasshing  flawes  do  flappe  her  face, 
And  on  her  speaking  mouth  do  beate, 
Anone  shee  sinkes  a  certayne  space, 
Depressed  downe  with  surges  great : 
Aiione  shee  fleetes  on  weltring  brim, 
And  pattes  them  of  with  tender  handes 
Through  faynting  feare  then  taught  to  swim 
Approaching  death,  and  fates  withstandes. 

Nuce's  language,  as  will  be  seen  from  these  extracts,  differs  some- 
what both  from  Heywood's  and  from  Studley's.  It  has  fewer  Latinisms 
than  Heywood's,  and  is  slightly  less  colloquial  and  more  archaic  than 
Studley's.  Nuce  has  a  partiality  for  archaic  words  like  '  freake,'  and 
'  make '  (meaning  '  spouse '),  which  the  other  translators  neglect,  and 
he  employs  very  largely  the  prefix  y-  before  the  past  participle  and 
sometimes  before  other  parts  of  the  verb. 

Nuce  follows  the  Latin  fairly  closely,  though  he  makes  no  attempt 
to  reproduce  the  Latin  order,  as  Heywood  does  in  the  Hercules  Furens. 
He  has  no  additions  of  original  matter  of  any  length,  and  he  does  not 


EVELYN    M.    SPEARING  447 

abridge  or  alter  the  choruses,  as  Neville  does.     The  opening  lines  of 
the  play  may  be  taken  as  an  example  of  his  method  of  translation : 

Now  that  Aurore  with  glittervng  streames, 
The  glading  starres  from  skye  doth  chase, 
Syr  Phoebus  pert,  with  spouting  beames, 
From  dewy  neast  doth  mount  apace : 
And  with  his  cheerefull  lookes  doth  yeeld, 
Unto  the  world  a  gladsome  day. 

Oct.,  I,  1—6  (161  b). 

The  Latin  is : 

lam  vaga  caelo  sidera  fulgens 
Aurora  fugat, 

surgit  Titan  radiante  coma 
muridoque  diem  reddit  clarum. 

Occasionally,  however,  Nuce  deals  with  his  original  much  more 
freely,  e.g.,  Oct.,  n,  137—139  (174  a) : 

Ner.     If  that  I  were  a  meacocke  or  a  slouch 

Each  stubborne,  clubbish  daw  would  make  mee  couch. 
Sen.      And  whom  they  hate,  with  force  they  overquell, 

which  represents  the  Latin : 

Ner.     Calcat  iacentem  vulgus.      Sen.    Invisum  opprimet. 

Thomas  Newton,  the  editor  of  the  1581  edition  of  the  Tenne 
Tragedies,  and  the  translator  of  the  Thebais,  was  born  about  1542, 
and  went  to  Trinity  College,  Oxford,  which  he  left  for  a  time  to  study 
at  Queens'  College,  Cambridge,  though  he  afterwards  returned  to  his 
old  college  at  Oxford.  About  1583  he  became  rector  of  Little  Ilford, 
Essex.  He  wrote  books  on  historical,  medical,  and  theological  subjects, 
and  made  several  translations  from  Latin.  He  translated  the  Thebais 
in  order  to  make  the  1 581  volume  complete.  It  is  somewhat  difficult 
to  judge  of  his  poetical  powers  from  this  play,  since  he  undertook 
it  from  necessity  and  not  from  choice.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  other 
translators  of  Seneca  had  let  it  alone,  for  it  is  not  a  single  complete 
play,  but  consists,  apparently,  of  two  fragments  of  plays  on  the  (Edipus 
legend — the  first  fragment  being  an  intolerably  wearisome  dialogue 
between  (Edipus  and  Antigone,  in  which  (Edipus  expresses  his  deter- 
mination to  die  and  Antigone  dissuades  him,  whilst  the  second  deals 
with  the  strife  between  the  two  sons  of  (Edipus,  and  Jocasta's  efforts  to 
reconcile  them.  The  dialogue  between  CEdipus  and  Antigone  occupies 
in  Seneca  about  320  lines,  which  Newton  expands  into  500,  all  in  the 
fourteener  measure.  The  weary  reader  can  only  wish  that  CEdipus, 
who  is  continually  announcing  that  he  means  to  kill  himself  by  some 


448       The  Elizabethan  'Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

horrible  death,  would  really  put  his  intentions  into  practice  instead  of 
describing  so  minutely  the  tortures  he  wishes  to  inflict  on  himself, 
or  dwelling  with  such  insistence  on  the  crimes  he  has  unwittingly 
committed,  which  render  him  worthy  of  death  in  his  own  eyes. 

It  was  impossible  for  Newton  to  make  much  of  such  dramatically 
unpromising  material  without  cutting  it  down  mercilessly,  but  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  felt  that  his  original  needed  compression.  On  the 
contrary,  he  has  a  tendency  to  expand  the  Latin  considerably,  and  to 
insert  explanatory  remarks  which,  though  useful  doubtless  to  the  reader 
unlearned  in  classical  story,  scarcely  add  to  the  dramatic  effect.  He  is 
not  a  slavish  translator  by  any  means ;  his  rendering  is  often  very  free, 
but  unfortunately  he  never  seems  to  have  noticed  that  his  original 
needed  not  expansion  but  compression.  Two  examples  will  illustrate 
this.  Seneca  makes  CEdipus  say : 

quantulum  hac  egi  manu  ? 
non  video  noxae  conscium  nostrae  diem 
sed  videor. 

Newton  expands  this  to  the  following  (Theb.,  I,  11 — 16  (41  a)): 

Alas,  what  litle  triffling  tricke  hath  hitherto  bene  wrought 

By  these  my  hands  ?  what  feate  of  worth  or  maistry  have  I  sought  ? 

Indeede,  they  have  me  helpt  to  pull  myne  eyes  out  of  my  head : 

So  that  ne  Sunne,  lie  Moone  I  see,  but  life  in  darknesse  lead. 

And  though  that  I  can  nothing  see,   yet  is  my  guilt  and  cryme 

Both  seeue  and  knowne,  and  poyncted  at,  (woe  worth  the  cursed  tyme). 

Again  Seneca  has  (11.  40 — 43) : 

sequor,  sequor,  iam  parce.     sanguineum  gerens 
insigue  regni  Laius  rapti  furit ; 
en  ecce,  inanes  manibus  infestis  petit 
foditque  vultus.     nata,  genitorem  vides  ? 

which  Newton  expands  thus  (Theb,,  I,  63—72  (41  b,  42  a)) : 

0  Father  myne  I  come,  I  come,  now  father  ceasse  thy  rage  : 

1  know  (alas)  how  I  abus'd  my  Fathers  hoary  age  : 

Who  had  to  name  King  Laius  :   how  hee  doth  fret  and  frye 

To  see  such  lewd  disparagement :   and  none  to  blame  but  I. 

Whereby  the  Crowne  usurped  is,  and  he  by  murther  slayne 

And  Bastardly  incestuous  broode  in  Kingly  throne  remayne. 

And  loe,  dost  thou  not  playnly  see,  how  he  my  panting  Ghost 

With  raking  pawes  doth  hale  and  pull,  which  grieves  my  conscience  most? 

Dost  thou  not  see  how  he  my  face  bescratcheth  tyrant  wyse? 

Tel  mee  (my  Daughter)  hast  thou  scene  Ghostes  in  such  griesly  guyse  ! 

Newton's  language  has  considerable  affinity  with  that  used  by 
Studley.  It  has  a  distinctly  colloquial  character  in  many  places,  is 
less  dignified  than  Heywood's,  and  prefers  native  words  to  Latinisms. 


EVELYN    M.    SPEARING  449 

A  striking  example  of  Newton's  employment  of  colloquialisms  may  be 
found  in  Polynices'  speech  in  Act  IV,  11.  243—256  (53  a): 

But  tell  mee  whyther  shall  I  goe  ?    Assigns  mee  to  some  place  : 

Bylike,  you  would  that  brother  rnyne  should  still  with  shamelesse  face 

Possesse  my  stately  Pallaces,  and  revell  in  his  ruffe, 

And  I  thereat  to  holde  my  peace,  and  not  a  whit  to  snuffe, 

But  like  a  Countrey  Mome  to  dwell  in  some  poore  thatched  Cot : 

Allow  mee  poore  Exyle  such  one  :    I  rest  content,  God  wot. 

You  know,  such  Noddyes  as  I  am,  are  woont  to  make  exchaung 

Of  Kingdomes,  for  poore  thatched  Cots,  beelike  this  is  not  strauug. 

Yea  more  :    I,  matcht  now  to  a  Wyfe  of  noble  ligne  and  race 

Shall  like  a  seely  Dottipoll  live  there  in  servile  case, 

At  becke  and  checke  of  queenely  Wyfe,  and  like  a  kitchen  drudge 

Shall  at  Adrastus  lordly  heeles,  (my  Wyves  owne  Father)  trudge. 

From  Princely  Port  to  tumble  downe  into  poore  servile  state, 

Is  greatest  griefe  that  may  betyde  by  doome  of  fro,uncing  fate. 

In  metre,  Newton  has  followed  Heywood's  example  rather  than 
Studley's.  He  uses  enjambement  freely,  places  the  logical  caesura  very 
frequently  at  the  end  of  the  second  foot,  and  has  a  higher  percentage 
of  lines  with  the  logical  caesura  after  the  fifth  syllable  (i.e.,  a  caesura 
of  the  lyric  kind)  than  Hey  wood  himself — the  proportion  being  under 
three  per  cent  in  all  Heywood's  plays,  whilst  it  is  over  three  per  cent  in 
the  Thebais.  As  an  example  of  Newton's  use  of  enjambement,  Theb.,  I, 
385—390  (45  b  and  46  a)  may  be  taken  : 

Apollo  by  his  Oracle  pronounced  sentence  dyre 
Upon  mee  being  yet  unborne,  that  I  unto  my  Syre 
Should  beastly  parricide  commit :  and  thereupon  was  I 
Condemmed  straight  by  Fathers  doome.     My  Feete  were  by  and  by 
Launcde  through  and  through  with  yron  Pins:  hangde  was  I  by  ye  Heeles 
Upon  a  Tree :  my  swelling  plants  the  printe  thereof  yet  feeles. 


ACCIDENCE. 

As  regards  the  accidence  of  the  Tenne  Tragedies,  the  verbal  forms 
are  the  most  noteworthy. 

Present  indicative,  2nd  pers.  sg. 

The  usual  form  is  the  normal  one  in  -est,  -st,  but  there  are  several 
examples  of  the  form  in  -es,  -s,  e.g. : 

Thou  beares  as  big  and  boystrous  brawnes  as  Hercules. 

Hipp.,  n,  502  (67  a). 

See  also  Hipp.,  in,  99  (69  a),  Here.  (Et.,  n,  261  (195  b),  in,  241  (202  b), 
(Ed,  n,  62  (82 b),  Theb.,  i,  221  (43 b),  Oct.,  iv,  240  (184 b). 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  29 


450        The  Elizabethan  'Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

3rd  pers.  pi. 

The  usual  form  is  the  uninflected  one,  but  all  the  translators  have 
examples  of  the  form  in  -s,  e.g. : 

The  Thracian  Daughters  wayls  Eurydicen 
(Latin :  deflent  Eurydicen  Threiciae  nurus). 

Here.  Fur.,  n,  376  (9  b). 

A  kindred  in  whose  cancred  heartes  olde  privy  grudges  springes. 

Ag.,  m,  403  (154  a). 

See  also  Medea,  iv,  259  (136  a),  Here.  (Et.,  I,  225  (191  a),  iv,  254 
(208  b),  Ag.,  n,  49  (143  b),  in,  433  (154  a),  Troas,  i,  20  (98  b),  (Ed.,  I, 
209  (80  b),  iv,  152  (91  a),  Oct.,  iv,  3  (180  b),  Theb.,  I,  16  (50  a). 

The  form  in  -eth,  -th  is  also  used  by  all  the  translators,  e.g. : 

But  loe  two  shining  Sunnes  at  once  in  heaven  appeareth  bryght. 

Ag.,  m,  398- (154  a). 
The  misteries  whereof  the  hearers  uuderstandeth  not. 

Theb.,  I,  216  (43  b). 

See  Troas,  I,  187  (101  a),  Here.  Fur.,  HI,  57  (10  b),  Hipp.,  I,  221 
<59  a),  Medea,  iv,  256  (136  a),  (Ed.,  iv,  97  (92  b),  Oct.,  n,  190  (175  a),  etc. 
The  form  in  -n  is  also  found,  though  rarely,  e.g. : 

By  al  my  Countrey  Gods  that  bene  in  Temples  closely  kept. 

(Ed.,  n,  91  (82  b). 
Except  they  shed  her  bloud  before  they  gone. 

Troas,  Arg.,  68  (97  b). 

See  (Ed.,  v,  115  (92  b),  v,  245  (94  b). 

Past  participle. 

The  prefix  y-  (O.E.  ge-)  is  used  very  frequently  by  Nuce,  who  has  a 
love  of  archaic  forms,  and  occasionally  by  the  other  translators. 

See  Troas,  v,  24  (117  b),  Medea,  u,  38  (123  b),  Oct.,  I,  273  (166  a). 

Weak  past  participles  often  omit  final  -ed,  especially  if  the  stem  of 
the  verb  ends  in  t  or  d,  e.g. :  '  Thy  fall  hath  lift  thee  higher  up.'  Troas, 
iv,  29  (114  b). 

Strong  past  participles  sometimes  omit  final  -n,  e.g. :  '  This  wayward 
agony  hath  take  his  perfit  wits  away.'  He?'c.  (Et.,  iv,  299  (209  b). 

Preterite  forms  are  sometimes  found  in  the  past  participle,  e.g. : 
<I  have  shooke  the  seas.'  Here.  (Et.,  n,  271  (195  b). 

Preterite. 

Among  the  archaic  or  irregular  forms  used  in  the  preterite  are  the 
following:  ' Flang '  =  ' flung '  (Hipp.,  iv,  103  (7lb)),  ' hard '  =  ' heard ' 
(Troas,  n,  101  (103  b)), '  molt  '  =  '  melted '  (Here.  (Et.,  n,  533  (199  a)), 


EVELYN   M.    SPEARING  451 

'  mought  '  =  '  might '  (Thy.,  m,  39  (28  a)),  '  shakte  '  =  '  shook '  (Oct.,  iv, 
61  (181  b)),  '  stack '  =  '  stuck '  (Medea,  iv,  156  (135  a)),  '  yode '  =  '  went ' 
(Oct.,  I,  587  (171  a)). 

METRE. 

The  metre  used,  as  a  rule,  throughout  the  non-choric  portions  of  the 
Tenne  Tragedies  (with  the  exception  of  Nuce's  Octavia)  is  the  fourteen 
syllable  line  or  fourteener,  with  the  normal  structure : 

X-^-X—     X     —     X—  X     —     X     —     X     — 

(x  representing  an  unstressed  syllable,  and  -*•  a  stressed). 

There  are  many  deviations  from  this  normal  structure,  and  the  most 
important  may  be  grouped  under  the  following  heads  : 

(a)     Shifting  of  the  caesura. 
(6)   '  Inversion  of  the  stress. 

(c)  Addition  of  extra  unstressed  syllables. 

(d)  Deficiency  of  unstressed  syllables. 

(e)  Use  of  feminine,  instead  of  masculine,  rhyme. 

With  regard  to  (a)  it  may  be  observed  that  there  is  usually  a  pause, 
though  sometimes  one  of  the  very  slightest  kind,  after  the  fourth  foot, 
even  when  the  main  pause  is  elsewhere.  This  explains  the  fact  that 
the  main  pause  is  much  more  often  to  be  found  after  the  second  foot 
than  after  the  third,  as  when  it  occurs  in  the  earlier  position  it  is  easy 
to  effect  a  slight  secondary  pause  after  the  fourth  foot,  as  a  sufficient 
interval  has  then  elapsed. 

There  are,  however,  some  examples  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  make 
any  pause  after  the  fourth  foot,  e.g. : 

Why  stay  I  wreche?    Why  doth  this  dreary  deede  make  mee  afright. 

Here.  (Et.,  ill,  135  (201  b). 

The  certayne  succour  of  a  trusty  friende  I  have  espide. 

Ag.%  v,  62  (157  a). 

The  caesura,  whilst  continuing  to  be  of  the  masculine  type,  may  be 
shifted  to  a  position  after  the  first,  second,  third,  fifth  or  sixth  foot1. 
The  position  after  the  second  foot  is  especially  favoured  by  Heywood 
(in  the  Thyestes  and  Hercules  Furens)  and  by  Newton.  In  the  Tkyestes 
the  proportion  of  lines  with  the  logical  caesura  in  this  position  is  as 

1  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  discussed  the  metre  of  the  Tenne  Tragedies  with 
Dr  W.  W.  Greg,  and  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  probably  be  better  to 
treat  the  caesura  of  the  fourteener  as  occupying  a  fixed  position  after  the  fourth  foot,  and 
to  consider  lines  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  make  a  break  there  as  lacking  in  caesura 
rather  than  as  shewing  shifting  of  caesura. 

29—2 


452       The  Elizabethan  ' Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

high  as  twenty-nine  per  cent.     The  position  after  the  first  foot  is  rare, 
and  after  the  sixth  foot  very  rare. 

The  caesura  may  also  be  of  the  feminine  lyric  type,  i.e.,  it  may  fall 
after  an  unaccented  syllable  which  is  reckoned  in  the  scansion,  e.g. : 

And  easde  his  shoulder  from  the  burthen  of  his  quiver  light. 

Here.  (Et.,  in,  78  (200  b). 

This  caesura  is  found  after  the  third,  fifth,  seventh,  ninth,  or  eleventh 
syllable. 

Finally  the  caesura  may  be  of  the  feminine  epic  type,  i.e.,  it  may  fall 
after  an  unaccented  syllable  which  is  not  reckoned  in  the  scansion,  e.g. : 

Death  is  not  sawst  with  soppes  of  Sorrow  if  some  man  els  I  have. 

Ag.,  n,  141  (145  a). 

There  are  a  few  exceptions  to  tha  statement  that  the  fourteener  is 
used  throughout  the  non-choric  portions  (except  in  Nuce's  Octavia}. 
The  most  important  of  these  passages  are  the  scene  between  Hecuba 
and  the  Chorus  in  Troas,  I,  71—170  (99  a— 100  b),  the  speech  of 
Andromache  to  Astyanax  in  Troas,  in,  301 — 337  (1  lib— 112 a),  and 
the  soliloquy  of  Thyestes  in  Thy.,  v,  35 — 84  (36  a  and  b) — all  in  the 
ten-syllable  line  rhyming  alternately ;  the  speech  of  Achilles  in  Troas, 
II,  1 — 91  (101  b — 103  a)  in  rhyme  royal ;  and  the  soliloquy  of  lole  in 
Here.  (Et.,  I,  222 — 277  (191  a — 192  a)  in  the  mixed  fourteeners  and 
alexandrines  known  as  poulter's  measure  or  common  measure.  In 
Nuce's  Octavia  the  decasyllabic  couplet,  and  the  octosyllable  rhyming 
alternately  are  used  in  the  non-choric  portions. 

In  the  Chorus  of  the  various  translations  the  following  metres  are 
used :  the  fourteener ;  the  poulter's  measure ;  the  alexandrine ;  the  ten- 
syllable  line,  rhyming  alternately,  or  arranged  in  stanzas  of  six  lines 
rhyming  a  b  a  b  c  c,  or  in  stanzas  of  seven  lines  rhyming  a  b  a  b  b  c  c 
(rhyme  royal) ;  the  octosyllable  rhyming  alternately. 

The  ten-syllable  line  rhyming  alternately  is  the  favourite  metre  for 
the  Chorus.  Its  structure  and  arrangement  of  rhyme  are  the  same  as 
those  of  the  heroic  or  elegiac  quatrain  (used  in  Dryden's  Annus  Mirabilis 
and  Gray's  Elegy},  but  there  is  no  definite  pause  at  the  close  of  the 
quatrain. 

* 

VOCABULARY. 

The  question  of  language  or  vocabulary  has  already  been  touched 
upon  in  the  discussion  of  the  styles  of  the  different  translators.  It  will 
be  seen  from  those  references  that  the  language  used  by  each  translator 
differs  somewhat  from  that  of  the  others.  Heywood's  language  is 


EVELYN    M.    SPEARING  453 

marked  by  occasional  Latinisms,  Studley's  by  colloquialisms,  Nuce's 
by  archaisms. 

There  are  a  very  large  number  of  interesting  words  employed  in  the 
Tenne  Tragedies,  and  it  will  only  be  possible  to  give  a  few  specimens. 

Latinisms. 

'  Frete '  or  '  freate,'  meaning  '  sea '  or  '  flood '  (Lat.  '  fretum '),  e.g. : 

And  freate  that  twyse  with  ebbe  away  doth  slip, 

And  twyse  upflowe.  Here.  Fur.,  n,  117,  118  (6  a). 

And  hardned  top  of  frosen  freate  hee  troade, 
And  sylent  Sea  with  bankes  full  dumme  about. 

Here.  Fur.,  II,  331,  332  (9  a). 
Thou  fearefull  freate  of  fyre... 
0  Phlegethon.  Thy.,  v,  270,  271  (39  b). 

The  New  Eng.  Diet,  gives  only  'strait'  as  the  meaning  of  'fret'  or 
'  frete,'  and  gives  one  sixteenth  century  example  of  its  use  in  that  sense, 
but  the  meaning  in  the  Tenne  Tragedies  seems  to  be  wider  and  to 
correspond  to  the  use  of  '  fretum '  in  Latin  poetry  to  mean  not  merely 
'strait'  but  'sea.' 

'  Roge,'  meaning  '  funeral  pile '  (Lat.  '  rogus '),  e.g. : 

And  roges  for  kings,  that  high  on  piles  we  reare. 

Troas,  l,  145  (100  a). 

What  bretherns  double  tentes  ?  or  what  as  many  roages  also  ? 
(Latin:  quid  totidem  rogos?)  Here.  Fur.,  II,  185  (7 a). 

'  Impery,'  meaning  '  dominion '  (Lat.  '  imperium '),  e.g. : 

...the  auncient  note  and  sygne  of  impery.  Thy.,  II,  48  (24 b). 

and  also  meaning  a  '  command,'  e.g.,  '  at  ease  he  doth  myne  imperies 
fulfyl '  (Lat.  '  laetus  imperia  excipit ')  (Here.  Fur.,  I,  40  (1  b)). 

'  Stadie,'  meaning  '  a  race-course,'  '  stadium,'  e.g.  '  Renowned  stadies 
to  my  youth '  (Lat.  '  celebrata  inveni  stadia ')  (Thy.,  ill,  6  (27  b)). 

Rare  or  difficult  words. 

'  Marble '  is  used  repeatedly  by  Studley  as  an  epithet  to  be  applied 
to  the  sea  or  sky,  e.g.,  Hipp.,  I,  25  (56  a)  '  Whereas  the  marble  Sea  doth 
fleete,'  Here.  (Et.,  n,  8  (192 a)  '...when  marble  skies  no  filthy  fog  doth 
dim.'  Readers  of  Milton  will  recall  in  this  connection  the  '  pure  marble 
air '  of  Paradise  Lost,  ill,  564.  The  New  Eng.  Diet,  explains  '  marble ' 
in  the  line  just  quoted  from  Milton,  and  in  a  line  from  Phaer  '  marble- 
facyd  seas,'  as  meaning  '  smooth  as  marble,'  and  takes  no  notice  of  the 
use  of  the  word  in  the  Tenne  Tragedies.  A  study  of  the  passages  in 
which  the  word  is  used  by  Studley  and  Heywood  leads,  however,  to  a 
somewhat  different  conclusion.  In  Hipp.,  iv,  46  (71  a)  we  find  '  A 


454        The  Elizabethan  ' Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

boasting  Bull  his  marble  necke  advaunced  hye  that  bare '  as  the 
rendering  of  the  Latin  '  Caerulea  taurus  colla  sublimis  gerens,'  where 
'marble'  represents  the  Latin  'caerulea.' 

In  Hipp.,  V,  5  (73  a)  '  the  Monstrous  hags  of  Marble  Seas '  represent 
the  '  monstra  caerulei  maris '  of  Seneca. 

Here.  (Et.,  II,  64  (193 a)  has  'The  northern  beare  to  Marble  seas 
shall  stoupe  to  quench  his  thyrst '  as  the  rendering  of  '  Ursa  pontum 
sicca  caeruleum  bibet.'  In  Heywood's  Here.  Fur.,  I,  131  (3  a)  we  find 
'  With  marble  horse  now  drawne '  representing  Seneca's  '  iam  caeruleis 
evectus  equis.'  Apparently  the  translator  associated  the  idea  of  blue- 
ness  with  marble,  for  in  Hipp.,  II,  491  (66  b)  'lucebit  Pario  marmore 
clarius '  is  rendered  by : 

The  Marble  blue  in  quarry  pittes  of  Parius  that  doth  lie, 

Beares  not  so  brave  a  glimsyng  glosse  as  pleasant  seemes  thy  face. 

If  marble  be  taken  as  the  equivalent  of  '  caeruleus '  = '  azure,'  '  dark 
blue,'  the  force  of  the  epithet  when  applied  to  sea  or  sky  becomes  clear, 
and  Studley's  predilection  for  it  (he  uses  it  frequently  when  there  is  no 
corresponding  Latin  adjective  at  all)  becomes  easy  to  understand. 

'  Aleare.' 

0  well  was  I,  when  as  I  lived  a  leare, 
Not  in  the  barren  balkes  of  fallow  land. 

Here.  (Et.,  I,  165,  166  (190  b). 

1  spoylde  thy  father  Hercules,  this  hand,  this  hand  aleare 
Hath  murdred  him.  Here.  (Et.,  in,  291,  292  (203  a). 

The  only  example  of  the  word  in  the  New  Eng.  Diet,  is  the  latter 
one  just  quoted  from  Here.  (Et.  The  New  Eng.  Diet,  explains: 
'  ?  Fated.  ?  chance-directed,'  and  suggests  as  a  derivation :  '  ?  ad  Lat. 
alearis,  meaning  "  belonging  to  dice." '  This  explanation  does  not  hold 
good  for  the  former  passage,  of  which  no  notice  is  taken  in  the  New 
Eng.  Diet.  There  is  no  corresponding  Latin  word  in  either  passage — 
'  felix  incolui  non  steriles  focos,'  '  Herculem  eripuit  tibi  haec,  haec 
peremit  dextra.'  Both  the  meaning  and  the  origin  of  the  word  are 
obscure.  The  Eng.  Dialect  Diet,  gives  'aleare'  as  a  provincial  word 
used  of  waggons  to  mean  'empty,  unladen.' 

'  Cloyne '  =  '  steal.' 

...for  feare  least  thou  alone 

Should  cloyne  his  Scepter  from  his  hand.    Here.  (Et.,  v,  310  (216  b). 

'  Feltred '  =  '  matted,'  '  tangled.' 

And  grlesly  Plutoes  filthy  feltred  denne.  Oct.,  I,  368  (167  a). 


EVELYN   M.    SPEARING  455 

'  Frounced '  =  '  wrinkled/  '  perverse.' 

And  settest  out  a  forhead  fayre  where  frounced  mynd  doth  rest. 

Hipp.,  m,  100  (69  a). 

Thus  starting  still  with  frounced  mynde  she  waiters  to  and  froe. 

Medea,  in,  9  (127  b). 

The  New  Eng.  Diet,  gives  no  example  of  the  figurative  use  of 
'  frounced,'  except  a  nineteenth-century  one  from  Saintsbury  in  quite  a 
different  sense,  though  it  mentions  that  '  frounce '  is  used  to  mean  '  to 
look  angry,'  which  is  not  quite  the  same  sense  as  here. 

'Gnoffe'  =  'churl.' 

The  covetous  charle,  the  greedy  gnofife  in  deede. 

Here.  CEt.,  11,  441  (198  a). 

'  Linne  '  =  '  cease/ 

...proceede,  and  never  linne 

To  gash  and  cut  my  wezand  pype.  Theb.,  I,  264,  265  (44  a). 

'  Meacock '  =  '  coward.' 

Not  lyke  a  Meycocke,  cowardly  at  eche  alarme  to  flee. 

Theb.,  I,  312  (45  a). 

If  that  I  were  a  meacocke  or  a  slouch 

Each  stubborne,  clubbish  daw  would  make  mee  couch. 

Oct.,  n,  137,  138  (174  a). 

'  Overheel '  =  '  cover  over/ 

...the  fielde 

That  all  to  spatterd  lay  with  bloud,  and  bones  quight  overheelde. 

(Ed.,  I,  124  (79  b). 

The  New  Eng.  Diet,  gives  no  example  of  the  use  of  the  word  as  late 
as  the  sixteenth  century  except  by  Scotch  writers. 

'  Plaunch.' 

Alas,  each  part  of  me  with  guilt  is  plaunch  and  overgrowne. 

Theb.,  i,  260  (44  a). 

The  New  Eng.  Diet,  gives  no  example  of  the  use  of  '  plaunch '  as  an 
adjective.     It  explains  the  verb  ' plaunch '  as  'to  cover  with  planks/ 

( Royle/ 

As  a  verb,  =  '  dance/  '  be  merry/ 

Let  them  in  solempne  Flockes  goe  royle.     Here.  Fur.,  in,  298  (14  a). 

As  a  noun,  =  '  monster '  (?). 

That  ugly  Royle  heere  heates  him  selfe.  Hipp.,  iv,  71  (71  b). 

These  royles,  that  preasse  to  worrey  mee.          Medea,  v,  124  (138  b). 


456        The  Elizabethan  'Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

'  Royst '  =  '  swagger.' 

Huff,  royst  it  out  couragiously.  Hipp.,  u,  102  (63  a). 

'  Yetling.' 

...and  all  the  wood  that  range  with  yetling  noyse. 

Here.  (Et.,  iv,  376  (210  b). 


THE  VALUE  OF  THE  'TENNE  TRAGEDIES.' 

In  considering  the  value  of  these  Elizabethan  translations  from 
Seneca,  it  is  necessary  to  take  into  account  both  their  intrinsic  worth 
and  also  their  influence  on  contemporary  literature.  As  regards  their 
intrinsic  worth,  that  consists  rather  in  the  testimony  they  afford  as  to 
the  grammar,  metre,  and  vocabulary  used  by  men  of  classical  learning 
at  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  than  in  any  dramatic  power 
displayed  in  them.  From  the  dramatic  point  of  view,  these  translations 
are  almost  worthless  intrinsically.  Seneca's  plays  are  hardly  drama  at 
all  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.  They  show  rhetoric,  eloquence,  and  a 
facility  for  epigrams,  but,  in  the  main,  have  little  action  and  less  de- 
velopment of  character.  How  utterly  inferior  Seneca  shows  himself  to 
the  Greek  dramatists,  when  handling  the  same  themes,  is  abundantly 
illustrated  by  the  Medea.  In.  certain  other  plays,  e.g.,  in  the  Hippolytus, 
Seneca  has  altered  the  story  in  such  a  way  as  to  ruin  completely  its 
tragic  beauty,  but  in  the  Medea  he  has  followed  Euripides  almost 
exactly  in  the  construction  of  the  plot,  and  yet  has  contrived  to 
vulgarise  and  degrade  the  whole  conception.  In  the  first  scene  Medea 
appears  as  almost  a  raving  maniac,  calling  down  vengeance  on  her 
husband,  and  her  language  is  as  wild  and  extravagant  at  the  beginning 
of  the  play  as  at  the  end.  There  is  none  of  the  subtle  development  of 
character  which  we  find  in  Euripides,  who  has  shown  us  Medea  as  a 
woman  whose  latent  barbaric  instincts  gradually  assert  themselves 
under  the  injuries  heaped  on  her,  till  at  last  the  loving  wife  and  mother 
becomes  the  furious  savage.  In  Euripides'  play,  she  is  by  no  means 
wholly  horrible ;  at  first  we  sympathize  with  her  against  her  foes,  and 
though  at  last  we  shudder  at  her  crime,  we  feel  that  the  guilt  is  Jason's 
as  much,  nay  perhaps  more,  than  hers.  But  in  Seneca's  play  she 
awakens  no  sympathy,  for  she  is  nothing  but  a  savage  throughout, 
except  perhaps  in  one  interview  with  Jason.  In  the  very  first  scene 
she  announces  her  intention  to  murder  her  children,  and  thus  the  sense 
of  gradually  growing  horror  with  which  Euripides  leads  up  to  that 


EVELYN   M.    SPEARING  457 

resolve,  is  entirely  lost.  The  beautiful  scene  in  which  she  suddenly 
bursts  into  tears  before  Jason  over  her  children,  is  wanting  in  Seneca, 
and  finally  she  kills  the  children  on  the  stage  before  their  father's  eyes — 
a  gratuitous  piece  of  theatrical  horror  carefully  avoided  by  Euripides. 
It  can  hardly  be  said  that  the  Elizabethan  translators  show  any  greater 
sense  of  dramatic  fitness  than  does  Seneca  himself;  in  fact  they  often 
accentuate  his  faults  and  obscure  his  merits.  Seneca's  speeches,  though 
not  well  adapted  to  the  characters  in  whose  mouths  they  are  put,  are 
generally  effective  from  a  rhetorical  point  of  view,  containing  much 
eloquence  and  many  striking  epigrams.  Unfortunately  Studley  and  his 
companions  exaggerated  Seneca's  eloquence  till  it  became  mere  rant, 
and  elaborated  and  explained  his  epigrams  till  they  lost  all  their  point. 
Two  examples  will  show  the  translators'  tendency  to  exaggerate  the 
violence  of  the  original. 

In  the  (Edipus,  n,  935,  936,  945—948,  Seneca  writes : 

Haec  fatus  aptat  impiam  capulo  manum 
ensemque  ducit.     'itane?... 
...Iterum  vivere  atque  iterum  mori 
liceat,  renasci  semper  ut  totiens  nova 
supplicia  pendas — utere  ingenio,  miser.' 

The  corresponding  lines  in  Neville's  translation  are  ((Ed.,  v,  35,  36 
55— 62(91  b,  92  a)): 

With  that  his  bloudy  fatall  Blade,  from  out  his  sheath  he  drawes. 

And  lowd  he  rores,  with  thundring  voice.     Thou  beast  why  dost  thou  pawse  ? 

...0  that  I  might  a  thousand  times,  my  wretched  lyfe  renewe. 

O  that  I  might  revyve  and  dye  by  course  in  order  dewe. 

Ten  hundred  thousand  times  and  more :  than  should  I  vengeance  take 

Upon  this  wretched  head.     Than  I  perhaps  in  part  should  make 

A  meete  amends  in  deede,  for  this  my  fowle  and  lothsome  Sin. 

Than  should  the  proofe  of  payne  reprove  the  life  that  I  live  in. 

The  choyse  is  in  thy  hand  thou  wretch,  than  use  thine  owne  discretion. 

And  finde  a  nieanes,  whereby  thou  maist  come  to  extreame  confusion. 

Again,  Seneca  puts  into  Medea's  mouth  the  words : 

pelle  femineos  metus 
et  inhospitalem  Caucasum  mente  indue, 
quodcumque  vidit  Pontus  aut  Phasis  nefas, 
videbit  Isthmos.     effera  ignota  horrida, 
trernenda  caelo  pariter  ac  terris  mala 
mens  intus  agitat. 

This  is  rant  enough  surely,  but  Studley  is  determined  to  improve 
on  his  original.  His  version  (Medea,  I,  69 — 80  (120  b)  is : 

Exile  all  foolysh  Female  feare,  and  pity  from  thy  mynde, 

And  as  th'  untamed  Tygers  use  to  rage  and  rave  unkynde, 

That  haunt  the,  croking  combrous  Caves,  and  clumpred  frosen  clives, 

And  craggy  Rockes  of  Caucasus,  whose  bitter  colde  depryves 


458       The  Elizabethan  f  Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca' 

The  soyle  of  all  Inhabitours,  permit  to  lodge  and  rest, 

Such  salvage  brutish  tyranny  within  thy  brasen  brest. 

What  ever  hurly  burly  wrought  doth  Phasis  understand, 

What  mighty  monstrous  bloudy  feate  I  wrought  by  Sea  or  Land: 

The  like  in  Corynth  shal  be  seene  in  most  outragious  guise, 

Most  hyddious,  hatefull,  horrible,  to  heare,  or  see  wyth  eyes, 

Most  divelish,  desperate,  dreadfull  deede,  yet  never  knowne  before, 

Whose  rage  shall  force  heaven,  earth,  and  hell  to  quake  and  tremble  sore. 

Two  examples  will  illustrate  how  much  some  of  Seneca's  concise 
and  pointed  lines  lose  in  the  translation.  Seneca  makes  Creon  say  to 
Medea  '  i,  querere  Colchis '  (1.  1 97).  Studley  translates  this  by  '  Avaunt, 
and  yell  out  thy  complaynts  at  Colchis,  get  thee  hence '  {Medea,  n,  140 
(124 a)).  In  Here.  (Et.,  641 — 642,  where  the  Latin  has  two  short  lines: 

quos  felices  Cynthia  vidit, 
vidit  miseros  enata  dies, 

the  English  has  six  long  ones : 

Whom  Moone  at  morne  on  top  of  Fortunes  wheele 

High  swayed  hath  seene,  at  fulnesse  of  renowne, 

The  glading  sunne  hath  seene  his  Scepter  reele, 

And  him  from  high  fall  topsey  turvey  downe. 

At  morne  full  merry,  blith,  in  happy  plight, 

But  whelmde  in  woes  and  brought  to  bale  ere  nyght. 

Here.  (Et.,  n,  459—464  (198  a). 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  multiply  examples  in  order  to  prove  how 
little  share  the  Tenne  Tragedies  can  claim  of  true  dramatic  quality. 
Their  value  lies  elsewhere — in  the  interest  of  their  language  and  style, 
in  their  metrical  and  grammatical  forms,  and  in  their  influence  on  the 
development  of  the  Elizabethan  drama.  I  have  dwelt  already  on  their 
metre,  grammar,  and  style,  and  on  the  extremely  interesting  character 
of  their  vocabulary.  On  all  these  points  they  are  worthy,  I  believe, 
of  careful  study.  With  regard  to  their  influence  on  the  Elizabethan 
drama,  the  question  is  a  wide  one,  and  can  only  be  touched  on  here  very 
slightly. 

Nash's  well-known  passage  in  his  preface  '  To  the  Gentlemen  Students 
of  both  Universities'  prefixed  to  Greene's  Menaphon  (published  1589) 
is  worth  quoting  in  this  connection  : 

It  is  a  common  practise  now  a  daies  amongst  a  sort  of  shifting  companions,  that 
runne  through  every  arte  and  thrive  by  none,  to  leave  the  trade  of  Noverint,  whereto 
they  were  borne,  and  busie  themselves  with  the  indevors  of  Art,  that  could  scarcely 
latinize  their  necke- verse  if  they  should  have  neede ;  yet  English  Seneca  read  by 
candle  light  yeeldes  manie  good  sentences,  as  Bloud  is  a  begger,  and  so  foorth  ;  and, 
if  you  intreate  him  faire  in  a  frostie  morning,  he  will  affoord  you  whole  Hamlets,  I 
should  say  handfulls  of  tragical  speaches.  But  O  griefe !  tempus  edax  rerum,  what's 
Chat  will  last  alwaies  ?  The  sea  exhaled  by  droppes  will  in  continuance  be  drie,  and 


EVELYN    M.    SPEARING  459 

Seneca  let  bloud  line  by  line  and  page  by  page  at  length  must  needes  die  to  our 
stage  :  which  makes  his  famisht  followers  to  imitate  the  Kidde  in  ^Esop,  who, 
enamored  with  the  Foxes  newfangles,  forsooke  all  hopes  of  life  to  leape  into  a  new 
occupation,  and  these  men,  renowncing  all  possibilities  of  credit  or  estimation,  to 
intermeddle  with  Italian  translations. 

William  Webbe  in  his  Discourse  of  English  Poetrie  (1586)  mentions 
'  the  laudable  Authors  of  Seneca  in  English,'  and  Francis  Meres  in 
Palladis  Tamia  (1598)  says  'these  versifiers  for  their  learned  transla- 
tions are  of  good  note  among  us,  Phaer  for  Virgils  ^Eneads,  Golding  for 
Ovid's  Metamorphosis...,  the  translators  of  Senecaes  Tragedies.' 

The  influence  of  Seneca  on  the  Elizabethan  drama  was  undoubtedly 
great  (see  J.  W.  Cunliffe,  Influence  of  Seneca  on  Elizabethan  Tragedy, 
R.  Fischer,  Kunstentwicklung  der  englischen  Tragodie).  It  affected  both 
the  form  and  the  substance  of  the  drama.  Among  the  different  points 
relating  to  external  form  on  which  Elizabethan  tragedy  was  influenced 
by  Seneca  may  be  noticed  the  division  into  five  acts,  and  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Chorus,  as  in  Gorboduc,  The  Misfortunes  of  Arthur, 
Catiline,  etc. 

With  regard  to  matter  and  treatment,  Senecan  influence  was  much 
more  important.  It  was  seen  in  the  treatment  of  the  supernatural,  in 
the  selection  of  horrible  and  sensational  themes,  in  the  tendency  to  long 
rhetorical  and  descriptive  passages,  in  the  use  of  stichomythia,  in  the 
introduction  of  moralising  commonplaces,  in  the  spirit  of  philosophic 
fatalism.  All  these  points  are  strikingly  exemplified  in  the  Tenne 
Tragedies,  and  on  all  of  them  the  debt  of  the  Elizabethan  drama  to 
Seneca  is  a  large  one.  Take  but  one  example,  the  use  of  the  super- 
natural. Seneca  had  neglected  the  Greek  Olympic  gods  and  had  shown 
a  great  partiality  for  the  infernal  deities,  for  ghosts  and  witchcraft,  and 
his  translators  seized  on  this  with  eagerness  and  even  sought  to  improve 
on  him,  for  whereas  in  the  Troas,  Seneca  only  narrates  by  a  messenger 
that  Achilles'  ghost  has  risen  to  demand  the  slaughter  of  Polyxena, 
Heywood  introduces  a  fresh  scene  in  which  Achilles'  ghost  rises  on  the 
stage  and  declaims  a  speech  of  ninety-one  lines.  Seneca's  use  of  the 
ghost  in  the  Agamemnon  is  specially  noteworthy  by  reason  of  its 
resemblance  to  that  of  the  ghost  in  Hamlet.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
play  the  ghost  of  Thyestes  rises  and  incites  his  son  ^Egisthus  to  revenge 
on  Agamemnon,  who  is  the  son  of  Thyestes'  brother  Atreus,  the  foul 
wrongs  inflicted  on  Thyestes  by  his  brother.  No  further  use  is  made  of 
this  motive  in  the  play,  but  it  was  a  suggestion  full  of  possibilities,  and 
it  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  passage  quoted  above  from  Nash  on  the 
subject  of  the  use  made  by  playwrights  of  translations  from  Seneca 


460       The  Elizabethan  ( Tenne  Tragedies  of  Seneca ' 

contains  the  earliest  known  reference  to  the  pre-Shakespearian  Hamlet, 
'  whole  Hamlets,  I  should  say  handfulls,  of  tragicall  speaches.' 

Seneca's  use  of  witchcraft  and  necromancy  is  very  noticeable,  e.g., 
in  the  Medea,  (Edipus,  and  Hercules  CEtaeus.  One  hundred  lines  in 
Studley's  translation  are  devoted  to  a  description  of  Medea  preparing 
her  charms,  and  amongst  them  occur  the  following: 

Then  having  brought  above  the  ground  of  Serpents  all  the  rout, 

Of  filthy  weedes  the  ranckest  bane  shee  pyckes,  and  gathers  out, 

...Shee  chops  the  deadly  hearbes,  and  wrings  the  squesed  clot^ered  bloud 

Of  Serpentes  out :  and  filthy  byrdes  of  irkesome  miry  rnud 

She  tempers  with  the  same  and  eake  she  brayes  the  heart  of  Owle 

Foreshewing  death  with  glaring  Eyes,  and  moaping  Vysage  foule. 

Medea,  iv,  55,  56,  91—94  (133  b,  134  a). 

It  is  difficult  to  distinguish  how  much  of  this  debt  of  the  Elizabethan 
dramatists  to  Seneca  is  due  to  the  plays  in  the  original,  and  how  much 
to  the  translations.  As  Cunliffe  observes,  the  more  learned  dramatists 
would  not  need  the  help  of  translations,  whilst  the  less  learned,  who 
were  glad  of  the  aid  afforded  by  Heywood  and  Studley,  would  prefer  to 
disguise  their  obligations  by  not  quoting  verbatim.  Undoubtedly  the 
Tenne  Tragedies  must  have  done  much  to  spread  a  general  knowledge 
of  Seneca,  and  to  inspire  interest  in  his  treatment  of  the  drama,  and 
probably  their  influence  was  much  greater  than  any  examination  merely 
of  parallel  passages  in  them  and  in  Elizabethan  plays  would  lead  us  to 
suspect.  The  contact  with  a  form  of  drama  so  different  from  that  of 
the  native  mysteries,  moralities,  and  interludes  was  an  inspiration  and 
a  help  to  the  Elizabethan  drama.  It  led  to  more  regular  construction, 
and  opened  up  new  possibilities  of  subject  and  treatment,  whilst  at  the 
same  time  the  very  imperfections  of  the  Senecan  tragedy  did  good 
service  by  preventing  an  unduly  close  imitation.  Had  the  masterpieces 
of  yEschylus,  Sophocles,  and  Euripides  become  the  models  of  Elizabethan 
playwrights,  we  might  have  lost  our  national  drama,  for  the  English 
genius  is  far  removed  from  the  Greek  in  character.  As  it  was,  when 
the  Elizabethans  had  learnt  what  they  could  from  Seneca,  they  realised 
the  dramatic  weakness  of  his  tragedies  and  struck  out  a  new  line  for 
themselves.  It  is  curious  to  remember  that  only  thirty  years  elapsed 
between  the  publication  of  even  the  earliest  of  these  translations  and 
that  of  Marlowe's  Tamburlaine  and  Faustus,  and  that  within  fifteen 
years  of  the  appearance  of  the  collected  edition,  Shakespeare  had  written 
Romeo  and  Juliet.  It  throws  a  light  on  the  extraordinarily  rapid 
development  of  the  English  drama  in  those  thirty  or  forty  years.  It 
seems  a  far  cry  from  the  broken-backed  lines,  bombastic  rhetoric,  and 


EVELYN    M.    SPEARING  461 

puppet  figures  of  these  Senecan  translations  to  the  perfect  harmony 
of  thought  and  expression,  to  the  ageless  and  deathless  creations  of 
Shakespeare's  plays,  but  great  poets  can  never  be  isolated  from  their 
predecessors,  and  every  one  of  the  forces  which  had  been  at  work  in 
English  literature  had  its  part  in  the  perfecting  of  the  Elizabethan 
drama.  Even  Shakespeare  might  not  have  been  quite  himself  as  we 
know  him,  had  it  not  been  for  the  work  of  the  obscure  translators  of 
Seneca. 

EVELYN  M.  SPEARING. 
CAMBRIDGE. 


NOTE.  The  Spenser  Society's  edition  of  the  Tenne  Tragedies  is  now 
out  of  print.  A  new  edition,  by  H.  de  Vocht,  of  Heywood's  Troas, 
Thyestes  and  Hercules  Furens  is  announced  in  Professor  Bang's 
Materialien  zur  Kunde  des  dlteren  Englischen  Dramas,  and  a  similar 
edition,  in  the  same  series,  of  Studley's  Agamemnon,  Medea,  Hippolytus 
and  Hercules  (Etaeus  has  been  undertaken  by  the  present  writer. 


'EL  DOMINE   LUCAS'   OF  LOPE   DE  VEGA 
AND   SOME  BELATED   PLAYS. 

I. 

IN  his  prologue  to  this  play,  Lope  offers  a  hint  as  to  its  origin. 
After  having  retouched  late  in  life  this  product  of  his  youthful  genius, 
he  dedicated  it  to  his  'best  friend,'  Juan  de  Pina,  with  these  words: 
'  While  in  the  service  of  that  most  excellent  gentleman,  Don  Antonio 
de  Toledo  y  Beamonte,  Duke  of  Alba,  in  the  age  which  may  be  described 
as  "  the  green  springtime  of  my  flowery  years,"  I  heard  related  a  part 
of  this  story,  to  the  beginnings  of  which  I  had  been  a  witness,  the 
sponsor  for  its  truth,  if  truth  it  has,  being  a  Valencian  gentleman, 
Borja  by  name,  in  soul  an  Alexander  and  in  valour  of  person  a  second 
Spanish  Alcides.  I  took  a  liking  to  the  incident  for  I  already  had  one 
for  the  gentleman  whom  I  mention,  and  I  wrote  it  down  in  the  style 
then  in  vogue.  I  found  it  on  the  present  occasion  begging  alms  like 
the  rest,  as  broken  and  friendless  as  are  wont  to  be  those  who  set  forth 
from  their  land  as  soldiers,  with  the  fuss  and  feathers  of  young  blood 
and  return  after  many  years  with  wooden  legs,  stumps  of  arms,  lacking 
eyes,  and  with  regimentals  of  uncertain  hue.  I  endeavoured  to  correct 
it,  and,  for  better  or  for  worse,  it  goes  into  the  world,  bearing  the  name 
of  my  best  friend.  Many  know  that  such  your  grace  is,  and  it  would 
be  tiresome  to  make  excuses  for  not  offering  you  greater  things,  more 
worthy  of  your  talent ;  but  often  men  do  not  give  those  they  love  things 
of  most  price,  but  rather  what  they  most  esteem1.' 

The  Valencian  gentleman  in  question  is,  without  much  doubt,  Lope's 
friend,  Don  Francisco  de  Borja,  Prince  of  Esquilache,  a  native  of  Valencia, 
well-known  as  poet  and  viceroy  of  Peru.  From  Lope's  words,  we  may 
conclude  that  the  plot  of  El  Domine  Lucas  is  based  upon  an  actual 
occurrence,  probably  some  student  adventure  in  which  the  hero  proved 

1  Comcdias  de  Lope  de  Vega  Carpio,  ed.  Hartzenbuscl),  Vol.  i,  Madrid,  1859,  p.  43. 


GEORGE  TYLER  NORTHUP  463 

his  valour  in  the  bull-ring  and  his  resourcefulness  in  love1.  The  story 
had  doubtless  lost  nothing  in  the  telling,  for,  as  we  see,  Lope  shrewdly 
refused  to  vouch  for  its  truth.  Lope  himself,  in  adapting  his  material 
to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  stage,  probably  still  further  embellished 
and  complicated  the  argument,  until  that  which  perhaps  was  originally 
a  very  slender  plot  developed  into  the  involved  intrigue  of  El  Domine 
Lucas. 

It  is  not  strange  that  in  later  years  Lope  should  have  cherished  a 
peculiar  affection  for  this  early  work.  The  play  evoked  in  his  memory 
youthful  love  and  youthful  friendships,  happy  days  spent  with  his  young 
wife,  Isabel  de  Urbina,  in  the  Duke  of  Alba's  seat  of  Alba  de  Tormes. 
This  was  a  period  of  his  early  manhood  to  which  Lope  frequently 
referred  as  the  happiest  in  his  life.  Only  five  leagues  distant  was  the 
great  university  town  of  Salamanca  whose  students  were  frequent  visitors 
in  Alba  de  Tormes — rich  students  like  Floriano  to  take  part  in  fiestas, 
and  poor  capigorrones  like  Decio  in  threadbare  cloaks  begging  an  alms 
of  the  passer-by.  Lope's  own  student  days  were  only  a  few  years  behind 
him.  Evidently  he  enjoyed  to  the  full  the  life  of  Salamanca  and  Alba 
de  Tormes.  El  Domine  Lucas  reflects  this  enjoyment.  It  is  one  of  the 
freshest  and  most  spontaneous  of  Lope's  early  plays. 

But  Lope  had  more  substantial  reasons  for  showing  in  his  old  age 
an  especial  fondness  for  this  play.  El  Domine  Lucas  was  one  of  his  first 
conspicuous  successes.  It  is  true  that  he  had  already  been  writing  for 
the  stage  for  several  years ;  it  is  true  that  he  had  already  won  the 
position  of  foremost  Spanish  dramatist.  But  it  was  only  about  this  time 
that  he  began  to  acquire  that  sureness  of  touch  found  in  his  later  work. 
Very  few  of  Lope's  plays  written  prior  to  El  D6mine  Lucas  have  come 
down  to  us.  The  plays  which  he  afterwards  deemed  worthy  of  publica- 
tion began  to  be  written  about  this  time. 

Lope  himself,  in  the  preface  from  which  I  have  already  quoted, 

1  The  Gonde  de  las  Navas,  in  his  work  on  bull-fighting  entitled  El  espectdculo  mas 
national,  Madrid,  1900,  pp.  58  ff.,  gives  much  curious  information  on  the  subject  of 
'tauromachia'  in  Salamanca.  There  existed  an  unwritten  law  demanding  that  each 
candidate  for  the  doctorate  provide  six  '  toros  de  muerte '  to  be  despatched  by  the  student 
body.  The  university  maintained  a  house  on  the  Plaza  Mayor  from  the  windows  of  which 
the  members  of  the  different  faculties  looked  down  upon  the  sport.  La  Fuente,  Historia 
de  las  universidades,  Vol.  in,  Madrid,  1887,  p.  104,  fixes  the  number  of  bulls  required  at 
three.  The  requirement  was  apparently  not  made  of  poor  students.  We  are  told  that  the 
usage  did  not  utterly  cease  until  1843.  Gaspar  Lucas  Hidalgo,  Didlogos  de  apacible  entre- 
tenimiento,  Barcelona,  1605,  fol.  15  verso,  declares  humorously  that  the  doctors  of  theology 
provided  cocks  rather  than  bulls — 'porque  no  aya  cuernos  que  dizen  muy  mal  con  la  borla 
blanca  de  honestidad.'  Such  exploits  as  that  of  Floriano  were  every  day  incidents  in  the 
life  of  the  Salamanca  student ;  indeed,  similar  feats  of  daring  can  still  be  witnessed  in  Spain 
at  any  village  capea. 


464    'El  Domine  Lucas1  of  Lope  de  Vega  and  related  Plays 

testifies  to  the  success  which  this  play  had  on  the  occasion  of  its  first 
production,  generously  giving  much  credit  to  the  actor  Melchor  de 
Villalba.  The  vogue  initiated  by  Villalba  lasted  many  years.  The 
piece  was  imitated  and  reworked  like  most  successful  plays.  It  was 
even  burlesqued.  This  popularity  is  doubtless  attributable  to  the  fresh- 
ness and  novelty  of  the  plot  rather  than  to  the  excellence  of  Villalba's 
acting.  Lope  had  at  last  '  found  himself.'  In  this  play  and  in  El 
Maestro  de  Danzar,  published  about  the  same  time,  Lope  gives  the 
Spanish  stage  a  new  type — that  of  the  resourceful  lover  who  assumes  a 
disguise,  or  acts  a  part,  in  the  furtherance  of  his  love  intrigue.  Hence- 
forth the  boards  will  be  crowded  with  the  master  masquerading  as  man, 
the  pretended  pedagogue,  the  feigned  astrologer,  the  dancing-master 
who  does  not  know  a  step,  the  gardener  with  uncalloused  hands,  the 
me'decin  malnre  lui,  the  lawyer  innocent  of  the  pandects,  but  who,  like 
Portia,  contrives  to  deliver  Solomonic  decisions.  All  these  and  many 
more  are  Ddmine  Lucas's  own  flesh  and  blood.  I  do  not,  of  course, 
mean  to  imply  that  all  or  many  of  these  types  are  immediate  copies  of 
Ddmine  Lucas.  Some,  it  is  true,  are  his  descendants ;  others  bear  a 
more  distant  kinship.  Disregarding  the  plays  which  show  a  remote 
resemblance,  in  the  present  article  I  propose  to  consider  only  a  few, 
closely  connected  with  the  one  we  are  studying. 

II. 

The  first  play  to  consider  is  another  of  Lope's,  El  Caballero  de 
Olmedo1.  What  is  the  connection  between  the  merry  comedy  of 
Domine  Lucas  and  the  tragic  story  of  Olmedo's  knight  ?  At  first  blush 
it  seems  strange  that  plays  so  diverse  should  have  much  in  common. 
Yet  in  the  popular  ballads,  from  one  of  which  Lope  is  supposed  to  have 
derived  the  main  idea  for  this  play,  the  knight's  treacherous  murder 
follows  a  love  intrigue  and  an  adventure  in  the  bull-ring2.  The  simi- 
larity between  this  part  of  the  plot  and  that  of  El  Ddmine  Lucas  is 
obvious.  There  is  also  to  be  noted  another  fact,  which,  while  it  may  be 
nothing  more  than  a  coincidence,  may  possibly  help  to  explain  why 
Lope  in  the  later  play  drew  so  largely  from  his  earlier  production.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Domine  Lucas  story  was  probably  associated  in  the 
poet's  mind  with  the  Prince  of  Esquilache.  Now,  it  is  this  same  Prince  of 

1  Obras  de  Lope  de  Vega,  publicadas  por  la  Real  Academia,  Vol.  x,  Madrid,  1899. 

2  Menendez  y  Pelayo,  ibid.,  p.  Ixxviii,  says  that  the  only  ballad  on  this  subject  that  has 
come  to  his  notice  is  that  by  the  Prince  of  Esquilache.     But  cf.  the  romance  preserved  in 
the  third  act  of  the  old  version  of  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo,  of  uncertain  authorship :  Ocho 
comedias  desconocidas,  ed.  Schaeffer,  Leipzig,  1887,  Vol.  i,  p.  335. 


GEORGE  TYLER  NORTHUP  465 

Esquilache  who  has  given  to  the  Caballero  de  Olmedo  legend  its  most 
poetic  form1.  The  Prince  of  Esquilache's  ballad  can  hardly  be  con- 
sidered as  Lope's  source.  He  certainly  does  not  follow  it  closely ;  and 
yet  the  love  element  and  the  bull-fight  episode  are  therein  alluded  to. 
Menendez  y  Pelayo  thinks  that  the  play  and  the  ballad  had  some 
remote  connection2.  It  is  true  that  the  Prince  of  Esquilache's  shorter 
poems  were  not  published  until  1648,  after  Lope's  death ;  but  it  was 
the  custom  of  the  time  for  men  of  letters  to  circulate  their  verse  in 
manuscript3.  Lope  and  the  Prince  were  on  terms  of  some  intimacy. 
They  exchanged  verse4.  Lope  dedicated  a  play  to  Esquilache5.  The 
two  were  united  in  their  opposition  to  culturanismo.  Both  were  inti- 
mate with  the  Duke  of  Alba.  Lope  may,  then,  have  seen  the  Prince  of 
Esquilache's  ballad  on  the  Knight  of  Olmedo,  and  associating  him  with 
this  subject,  just  as  he  had  previously  connected  him  with  the  very 
similar  Ddmine  Lucas  story,  it  would  have  been  natural  for  him  to  have 
worked  the  two  plots  into  one.  This  he  did  in  his  version  of  El  Caballero 
de  Olmedo. 

Menendez  y  Pelayo  finds  in  this  play  three  elements6 :  one  portion 
of  the  plot  is  derived  from  El  Domine  Lucas,  another  from  the  Celestina, 
and  the  rest  from  the  popular  legend  concerning  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo. 
I  would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  germ  of  the  Celestina  element 
may  be  found  in  El  D6mine  Lucas.  The  ruse  by  which  Floriano  conveys 
to  Lucrecia  a  love-letter,  while  pretending'  to  give  her  a  charm  against 
the  toothache,  causes  the  latter  to  exclaim : 

Quizd  el  d<5mine  toc6 
Un  paso  de  Celestina, 
En  que  da  esta  medicina 
A  otra  Lucrecia  cual  yo7. 

But  with  this  slight  incident,  the  connection  between  the  Celestina  and 
El  Domine  Lucas  stops.  In  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo,  on  the  other  hand, 

1  Obras,  Lope  de  Vega,  op.  cit.,  pp.  Ixxviii — Ixxx. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  Ixviii. 

3  In  fact,  one  of  the  sonnets  in  Esquilache's  collected  works  was  inspired  by  Lope's 
death.     To  the  modern  reader  it  is  conspicuous  for  its  bad  taste.    Addressing  the  nymphs 
of  the  Tagus,  he  urges  them  as  follows  : 

No  remitais  el  llanto  a  Mancanares ; 
Porque  el  comun  dolor  tendra  burlado, 
De  poco  rio,  sentimiento  poco. 
Principe  de  Esquilache,  Obras,  Amberes,  1673,  p.  67. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  64,  392. 

5  Lope  de  Vega,  Comedias,  ed.  Hartzenbusch,  Vol.  iv,  Madrid,  1869,  pp.  139  f. 

6  Menendez  y  Pelayo  merely  mentions  the  fact  that  El  Domine  Lucas,  El  Caballero  de 
Olmedo,  and  Marta  la  piadosa  are  related,  but  does  not  study  in  detail  the  interrelation  of 
these  three  plays  (op.  cit.,  p.  xcv).    Nor,  strangely  enough,  is  it  mentioned  by  Schack,  Klein, 
nor  Schaeffer. 

7  Lope  de  Vega,  Comedias,  ed.  Hartzenbusch,  Vol.  i,  Madrid,  1859,  p.  48. 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  30 


466   CEI  Domine  Lucas'  of  Lope  de  Vega  and  related  Plays 

the  Celestina  element  is  very  prominent.  We  have  in  Fabia  a  character 
who  is  almost  a  replica  of  Celestina,  or  of  Lope's  own  Gerarda  in  the 
Dorotea.  The  stratagem  by  which  Fabia  conveys  to  Ines  the  news  of 
Alonso's  love  is  very  similar  to  Floriano's  ruse.  But  all  other  incidents 
having  any  connection  with  the  Celestina  appear  to  have  been  taken 
directly  out  of  Rojas's  work. 

Two  other  important  motives  common  to  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo 
and  El  Domine  Lucas  are  the  bull-fight  incident  and  the  episode  of  the 
feigned  teacher.  We  must,  however,  note  these  differences.  In  the 
earlier  play,  much  less  is  made  of  the  bull-fight.  It  merely  provides  an 
opportunity  for  the  hero  to  display  his  prowess  and  win  the  favour  of  the 
heroine.  In  the  latter  play,  on  the  other  hand,  the  skill  which  the  hero 
displays  in  the  ring,  and  the  favour  there  shown  him  by  his  lady,  arouse 
his  rival's  envy.  The  latter  then  and  there  plans  the  murder  which  he 
afterwards  executes.  The  bull-fight  contributes  directly  to  the  tragic 
denouement.  As  for  the  device  of  introducing  into  the  lady's  house  a 
pretended  teacher,  in  El  Domine  Lucas,  it  is  the  lover  himself  who 
enacts  the  role ;  in  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo,  it  is  the  servant.  In  the 
former  play,  we  have  a  writing  lesson  scene ;  in  the  latter,  there  is  a 
Latin  lesson. 

III. 

Leaving  aside  for  the  moment  the  consideration  of  El  Caballero  de 
Olmedo,  let  us  next  turn  to  another  play  inspired  in  part  by  El  Ddmine 
Lucas,  Tirso  de  Molina's  Maria  la  piadosa.  That  El  Domine  Lucas  is 
one  of  the  sources  of  the  last  named  play  cannot  be  doubted.  Tirso 
himself  all  but  admits  the  fact.  Instead  of  D(5mine  Lucas,  we  have  in 
this  play  an  equally  entertaining  Ddmine  Berrio,  who,  as  we  shall  see, 
plays  much  the  same  role.  In  another  of  Tirso's  best  known  plays, 
Desde  Toledo  a  Madrid,  there  is  a  curious  reference.  The  hero, 
Don  Baltasar,  in  order  to  be  near  his  lady,  assumes  the  disguise  of 
a  muleteer.  When  asked  his  name  he  replies : 

Lucas 

Berrfo  soy  en  mi  casa, 
Gracias  &  taita  y  al  cura,  etc.1 

Is  it  too  bold  an  assumption  to  say  that  '  taita,'  i.e.,  '  father,'  '  papa,' 
refers  to  Lope  de  Vega,  and  that  the  '  cura,'  '  priest,'  is  no  other  than 
Fray  Gabriel  Tellez  himself?  Does  not  the  author  clearly  mean  to 
imply  that  this  strange  compound  name  came  from  two  sources,  part 

1  Tirso  de  Molina,  Comedias,  ed.  Hartzenbusch,  Madrid,  1903,  p.  489. 


GEORGE  TYLER  NORTHUP  467 

from  Lope,  part  from  Tirso  ?  Tirso  was  fond  of  inserting  in  his  plays 
more  or  less  veiled  allusions  to  himself  and  his  friends1.  Several  lines 
following  those  I  have  quoted  appear1  to  contain  personal  allusions. 
However  this  may  be,  the  uniting  of  the  names  Lucas  and  Berrio  shows 
two  very  interesting  things.  First  of  all,  it  is  tantamount  to  a  con- 
fession on  Tirso's  part  that  Ddinine  Lucas  is  the  original  of  his  Ddmine 
Berrio.  Furthermore,  Desde  Toledo  d  Madrid  was  written  in  1625 2, 
eleven  years  after  Marta  la  piadosa3,  and  approximately  thirty  years 
after  the  first  production  of  El  Domine  Lucas*.  Tirso's  evident  expecta- 
tion that  his  audience  would  understand  the  double  allusion  contained 
in  the  name  so  long  after  the  first  production  of  these  plays  speaks 
volumes  for  their  popularity  and  continued  success.  D(5mine  Lucas 
and  Ddmine  Berrio  had  doubtless  become  household  words. 

Let  us  now  see  what  elements  in  Marta  la  piadosa  were  unmistak- 
ably derived  from  El  Domine  Lucas.  First,  we  have  two  sisters,  Marta 
who  is  quick  of  wit  (discreta),  and  Lucia  who  is  dull  (boba).  They 
correspond  exactly  to  Lucrecia  and  Leonarda  of  El  Domine  Lucas,  and 
like  the  latter,  both  love  the  same  man.  Lucia,  like  Leonarda,  easily 
allows  herself  to  be  outwitted.  The  ruse  by  which  she  is  induced 
publicly  to  proclaim  her  love  for  a  man  she  does  not  love,  and  even  to 
marry  him,  is  nearly  identical  in  both  plays.  Lucia,  like  Leonarda,  at 
one  time  penetrates  the  pretended  teacher's  disguise,  and  is  filled  with 
envy  on  seeing  the  two  lovers  embrace,  bu,t  like  Leonarda  allows  herself 
to  be  deceived.  These  incidents  Tirso  certainly  took  from  El  Domine 
Lucas.  They  are  not  to  be  found  in  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo,  which  I 
shall  now  attempt  to  prove  was  another  source  of  Marta  la  piadosa. 


IV. 

The  most  important  character  in  Marta  la  piadosa,  the  character 
who  gives  the  play  its  name,  has  no  counterpart  in  El  Domine  Lucas, 
but  is  to  be  found  in  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo.  It  is  the  character  of 
the  female  hypocrite  who  affects  devotion  in  order  to  avoid  a  distasteful 
marriage.  This  ruse,  resorted  to  by  Marta  in  Tirso's  play  and  by  Ines 
in  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo,  is  not  attempted  by  Lucrecia  in  El  Domine 
Lucas.  The  latter,  although  a  hypocrite,  does  not  express  a  desire  to 

"  • 

1  Cf.  Cotarelo  y  Mori,  Tirso  de  Molina,  Madrid,  1893,  pp.  129  ff.,  where  similar  personal 
allusions  may  be  noted. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  161. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  158. 

4  El  Domine  Lucas  must  have  been  written  between  1590  and  1595.     Cf.  Bennert,  Life 
of  Lope  de  Vega,  Glasgow,  1904,  pp.  98  ff. 

30—2 


468    (El  Domine  Lucas'  of  Lope  de  Vega  and  related  Plays 

take  the  veil.  We  have  seen  that  the  instruction  received  by  the  last- 
named  heroine  is  in  the  art  of  writing.  The  other  two  plays  agree  in 
having  each  a  Latin  lesson  scene.  The  heroines'  desire  to  learn  Latin 
is,  of  course,  in  keeping  with  their  professed  eagerness  to  become 
nuns.  Other  minor  resemblances  might  be  noted.  It  is  obvious  after 
the  most  casual  perusal  that  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo  and  Maria,  la 
piadosa  have  a  close  and  intimate  connection  independent  of  El  Domine 
Lucas. 

The  real  problem  to  be  solved  is  this :  did  Lope  borrow  from  Tirso 
or  Tirso  from  Lope  ?  Is  Tirso's  fascinating  Marta  (who,  according  to 
Martinenche,  may  have  suggested  to  Moliere  certain  ideas  embodied  in 
his  Tartuffe)  an  original  creation,  or  can  the  character  be  traced  still 
farther  back1  ? 

The  question  of  dates  is  first  to  be  considered.  The  date  of  Marta 
la  piadosa  is  firmly  fixed.  Cotarelo  y  Mori  by  internal  evidence  has 
shown  it  to  have  been  written  in  16142.  Unfortunately  there  is  more 
uncertainty  respecting  the  date  of  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo.  Menendez 
y  Pelayo  has  been  unable  definitely  to  determine  it,  but  thinks  the  play 
must  have  been  written  subsequently  to  1614,  as  it  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  list  of  comedies  in  the  preface  to  Lope's  Peregrino  en  su  patria3. 
The  date  1614  given  by  Seiior  Menendez  must  be  a  mistake.  The  first 
edition  of  the  Peregrino  was  printed  in  1604,  while  the  second,  con- 
taining the  revised  list  of  comedias,  appeared  in  1618.  In  neither  is 
El  Caballero  de  Olmedo  mentioned.  Senor  Menendez  also  thinks  that 
the  play  is  written  in  the  style  of  Lope's  maturer  years.  But  all  this  is 
very  slender  evidence.  We  are  not  bound  to  believe  that  the  Peregrino 
list  was  absolutely  complete  and  that  it  is  impossible  for  a  play  not 
included  in  the  list  to  have  been  written  previous  to  1618.  We  have 
Lope's  own  assurance  that  the  list  is  incomplete4.  In  a  matter  so 
delicate  as  the  judging  of  Lope's  style,  a  foreigner  hesitates  to  set  up  a 
judgment  contrary  to  that  of  Lope's  learned  editor.  But  El  Caballero 
de  Olmedo  was  not  published  till  1641.  Is  it  not  possible  that  Lope  in 
his  later  years  revised  this  play  for  the  press  just  as  he  did  others, 

1  Cf.  Martinenche,  Moliere  et  le  theatre  espagnol,  Paris,  1906,  p.  167. 

2  Cotarelo  y  Mori,  op.  cit.,  p.  158. 

3  Cf.   Menendez  y  Pelayo,  op.  cit.    If  the  supposition  of  Mesonero  Komanos,  who 
thinks  Monteser's  burlesque  is  based  upon  Lope's  Caballero  de  Olmedo,  be  correct,  we 
should  have  no  occasion  to  discuss  this  point;  but  Eestori,  Zeit.  f.  roman.  Phil.,  xxix, 
p.  359,  denies  that  the  burlesque  was  based  on  the  version  of  the  play  we  are  discussing 
and  also  shows  that  Monteser's  play  was  probably  written  in  1651,  instead  of  1621  as 
supposed. 

4  For  a  discussion  of  this  matter,  cf.  Eennert,  op.  cit.,  p.  477. 


GEORGE  TYLER  NORTHUP  469 

including  El  Domine  Lucas  ?  In  the  absence  of  a  manuscript  fixing 
the  date,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  question  of  priority  can  only  be 
determined  by  a  comparative  study  of  the  two  plays  in  question. 

It  is  stating  the  veriest  commonplace  to  remark  that,  of  the  two, 
Lope  is  much  the  more  original  in  invention.  Where  we  find  Lope  and 
Tirso  utilizing  the  same  material,  it  is  the  natural  presumption  that 
Tirso  plagiarized  from  Lope,  not  Lope  from  Tirso.  Although  Lope  took 
many  ideas  from  other  authors,  he  seldom  plundered  the  works  of  his 
contemporary  rival  dramatists.  His  latest  biographer  goes  so  far  as  to 
say  that  he  never  did1.  It  is  not  necessary  to  multiply  examples  of 
Tirso's  plagiarisms  from  Lope.  They  are  too  well-known.  But  I  should 
like  to  point  out  that  in  Marta  la  piadosa  Tirso  apparently  utilizes  still 
another  of  Lope's  plays,  La  discreta  enamorada.  The  Captain  Urbina 
and  his  nephew  the  alferez  of  Tirso's  play  appear  to  be  copies  of  the 
Captain  Bernardo  and  his  son  the  alferez  Lucindo  of  La  discreta 
enamorada.  In  both  plays,  the  elderly  soldier  cherishes  a  passion  for 
a  young  woman  who  avoids  an  unwelcome  marriage  by  a  stratagem. 
There  is  this  difference,  that  Captain  Urbina  Bernardo  is  the  rival  of 
his  own  son,  while  Captain  Urbina  is  not  the  rival  of  the  alferez  but  of 
another  young  gallant.  Fenisa,  the  heroine  of  La  discreta  enamorada, 
is  a  worthy  sister  of  Ines  and  Marta.  She  is  equally  rich  in  expedients. 
She,  too,  is  hypocritical,  but  she  does  not  affect  a  longing  for  the  cloister. 
I  am  well  aware  that  the  priority  of  La  discreta  enamorada  to  Marta  la 
piadosa  should  be  proved,  not  assumed,  but  it  is  impossible  .to  determine 
its  exact  date.  We  have  no  means  of  dating  La  discreta  enamorada 
beyond  the  fact  that  it  appeared  in  the  Peregrino  list  of  1618.  But 
even  so,  the  laws  of  probability  would  favour  its  having  been  published 
before  rather  than  after  1614,  the  date  of  the  writing  of  Marta  la  piadosa. 
At  all  events,  it  has  been  shown  that  Marta  la  piadosa  bears  a  close 
resemblance  to  at  least  three  of  Lope's  plays,  one  of  which  beyond 
dispute  was  written  approximately  twenty  years  earlier.  The  dates  of 
the  other  two  plays  are  admittedly  uncertain.  The  natural  presumption 
is  that  the  man  who  certainly  plagiarized  in  the  case  of  the  one  play 
(El  Domine  Lucas)  probably  did  so  from  the  other  two. 

But  there  are  better  reasons  for  supposing  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo 
to  have  been  written  before  Marta  la  piadosa.  Apart  from  these  two 
plays,  the  female  hypocrite  is  a  very  common  character  in  the  Spanish 
drama  and  novel.  Where  did  she  originate  ?  Martinenche  considers 
Celestina  to  be  the  arch-hypocrite,  the  progenitress  of  the  whole  race 

1  Ibid. ,  p.  395  note. 


470    'El  Domine  Lucas1  of  Lope  de  Vega  and  related  Plays 

of  hypocrites  in  Spanish  literature1.  Celestina's  hypocrisy  is  well 
drawn  by  Rojas.  Parmeno  in  describing  her  character  says:  'Nunca 
passaua  sin  missa  ni  bisperas  ni  dexaua  monesterios  de  frailes  ni  de 
monjas;  esto  porque  alii  fazia  ella  sus  alleluyas  e  conciertosV  And 
Celestina  herself  says:  'Yo  te  prometo,  senora,  en  yendo  de  aqui,  me 
vaya  por  estos  monesterios,  donde  tengo  frayles  deuotos  mios,  y  les 
de"  el  mismo  cargo  que  tu  me  das.  Y  demas  desto,  ante  que  me 
desayune,  d6  quatro  bueltas  a  mis  cuentas3.'  Clearly  no  better  model 
of  hypocrisy  could  be  desired.  We  have  observed  a  trace  of  the 
Celestina  influence  in  El  Domine  Lucas  and  a  great  deal  of  it  in 
El  Caballero  de  Olmedo.  Aside  from  the  character  of  Marta,  I  see 
little  trace  of  the  Celestina  influence  in  Marta  la  piadosa,  and  nothing 
of  the  kind  that  could  not  have  been  derived  indirectly  through  the 
medium  of  the  other  two  plays.  On  the  other  hand,  El  Caballero  de 
Olmedo  shows  direct  imitation.  The  character  Fabia  is  a  slavish  imita- 
tion of  the  hag  Celestina.  The  idea  of  the  nocturnal  expedition  to  the 
foot  of  a  gallows  to  extract  a  tooth  from  the  mouth  of  a  swinging  criminal 
can  be  traced  back  to  the  Celestina4.  Now,  I  ask,  is  not  the  character 
of  the  hypocrite  more  likely  to  have  originated  in  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo, 
a  work  strongly  and  directly  influenced  by  the  Celestina,  than  in  Marta 
la  piadosa,  where  that  influence  was  slight  ?  The  two  authors  did 
not  develop  the  character  of  the  female  hypocrite  from  the  Celestina 
independently.  The  similarity  of  the  Latin  lesson  scene  shows  one 
play  to  have  been  derived  from  the  other. 

But  it  may  be  objected  that  Celestina  is  a  real  hypocrite,  and  that 
In£s  and  Marta  are  hypocrites  for  the  occasion  only.  True,  but  the  one 
kind  of  hypocrite  could  easily  have  suggested  the  other.  In  El  Caballero 
de  Olmedo  we  have  both  kinds.  The  temporary  hypocrisy  of  Ines  is  an 
invention  of  the  real  hypocrite,  Fabia.  Fabia  is  the  prompter  of  Ines 
throughout,  and  the  latter's  professed  desire  to  become  a  nun  is  only 

1  Martinenche,  op.  cit.,  p.  160.     Lope  himself  refers  to  Celestina  as  the  ancestress  of 
other  hypocrites.     In  the  scene  referred  to  in  the  text,  where  Floriano  gives  Lucrecia  a 
love-letter,  while  pretending  to  pass  her  a  charm  against  the  toothache,  the  latter  exclaims : 

;  Que  santidad  que  fingia 
Hasta  ponerla  en  mi  mano! 
Basta;  que  de  aqueste  oficio 
Dejo  Celestina  nietos, 
Y  no  con  menos  efetos 
Para  enganar  el  juicio. 
Obras  de  Lope  de  Vega,  ed.  Hartzenbusch,  Vol.  i,  p.  49. 

2  Comedia  de  Calisto  e  Melibea,  ed.  Foulche^Delbosc,  Barcelona-Madrid,  1900,  p.  23. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  55. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  91.     'Siete  dientes  quito  a  vn  ahorcado  con  vnas  tenazicas  de  pelar  cejas, 
mientra  yo  le  descalce  los  capatos.' 


GEORGE  TYLER  NORTHUP  471 

part  of  a  very  complicated  intrigue  of  Fabia's  devising.  Tirso's  Marta, 
on  the  other  hand,  needs  no  prompter.  Always  sufficient  unto  herself, 
her  nimble  wit  never  plays  her  false.  The  colourless  duena  who  helps 
along  her  stratagem  takes,  but  does  not  give,  counsel.  There  is  no  real 
hypocrite  in  the  play  who  could  have  suggested  the  fictitious  one. 

But  the  hypocritical  lover  seems  to  have  still  another  raison 
d'etre  in  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo  which  she  lacks  in  Marta  la  piadosa. 
We  have  seen  that  another  source  utilized  by  Lope  was  the  popular 
romantic  legend  which  had  sprung  up  concerning  the  Knight  of 
Olmedo.  The  popular  ballads,  without  much  doubt,  make  Don  Alonso's 
sweetheart  enter  a  nunnery  after  the  murder  of  her  lover.  The  earlier 
play  on  this  same  subject,  published  in  1606,  and  based  on  a  romance, 
has  this  denouement1.  Now,  what  more  natural  than  that  Lope,  working 
toward  this  ending,  should  make  the  woman  whose  final  destiny  was  to 
be  the  cloister  profess  in  the  days  of  her  happiness  an  insincere  desire 
to  become  a  nun  ?  What  an  opportunity  for  dramatic  irony !  In  the 
whole  Spanish  drama,  there  is  nothing  more  tragic  than  Ines's  sudden 
change  from  feigned  to  real  piety  after  hearing  the  news  of  her  lover's 
death.  The  jest  had  become  grim  earnest.  What  a  wealth  of  emotion 
is  condensed  in  her  simple  utterance  : 

;  Lo  que  de  burlas  te  dije, 
Senor,  de  veras  te  ruego  ! 

To  a  bigoted  seventeenth  century  audience,  there  may  have  been 
something  of  sacrilege  in  Ines's  trifling  with  piety.  Her  lover's  death 
may  have  seemed  a  well-deserved  visitation  of  divine  wrath.  Whether 
or  not  this  was  present  in  Lope's  mind,  he  has  here  achieved  one  of  his 
strongest  tragic  effects.  The  comedy  of  the  first  two  acts  makes  the 
tragedy  of  the  last  stand  forth  in  startling  relief.  To  cause  the  hypo- 
critically pious  lover  to  embrace  in  sad  earnest  a  religious  life  was  a 
master-stroke  of  genius. 

In  Marta  la  piadosa  I  can  find  nothing  which  would  account  for  the 
invention  of  the  character.  The  intrigue  is  less  important  than  Marta 
herself.  The  play  is  almost  Molieresque  in  its  subordination  of  plot  to 
the  portrayal  of  a  type ;  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  Tirso's  portrayal 
of  the  hypocritical  lover  is  the  more  successful  of  the  two.  His  Latin 
lesson  scene  is  much  more  spirited  and  entertaining  than  Lope's.  One 
is  reminded  of  Dame  Quickly's  Latin  lesson  in  The  Merry  Wives  of 
Windsor.  Marta  is  infinitely  more  interesting  than  Ines.  Not  but  that 

1  Schaeffer,  Ocho  comedias  desconocidas,  Vol.  i,  Leipzig,  1887. 


472    'El  Domine  Lucas'  of  Lope  de  Vega  and  related  Plays 

Lope  could  have  drawn  the  hypocritical  lover  fully  as  well  had  he  cared 
to  do  so,  but  his  interest  was  centred  in  Fabia  rather  than  in  In6s. 
If  Tirso  borrowed  from  Lope,  he  improved  upon  his  model.  If  Lope 
plagiarized  Tirso,  he  cannot  be  excused  on  the  ground  that  he  surpassed 
his  model  in  those  few  things  that  he  could  have  taken. 

But  all  this  leads  me  to  think  that  Tirso  was  the  borrower  this 
time  as  in  most  other  cases ;  that  El  Ddmine  Lucas  and  El  Caballero 
de  Olmedo,  and  probably  La  discreta  enamorada  as  well,  are  sources 
of  Marta  la  piadosa ;  that,  therefore,  Menendez  y  Pelayo  has  fixed  the 
date  of  El  Caballero  de  Olmedo  too  late.  I  should  date  the  play  previous 
to  the  year  1614,  the  date  of  Marta  la  piadosa. 

Some  may  object  that,  if  Lope  admittedly  rewrote  El  Domine  Lucas, 
Tirso  may  have  utilized  an  earlier  version  of  the  play  than  that  known 
to  us,  and  the  earlier  version  may  have  contained  the  female  hypocrite 
and  the  Latin  lesson  episode,  lacking  in  the  play  as  we  now  have  it. 
This  is  of  course  a  possibility,  but  scarcely  a  probability.  Lope  tells  us 
that  he  corrected  the  'play,  but  nothing  he  says  would  indicate  that  the 
changes  made  were  far-reaching.  Chorley  considers  that  the  play  has 
no  figura  de  donaire.  Decio  is  far  from  being  the  conventional  gracioso. 
Now,  had  Lope  late  in  life  radically  altered  the  plot,  he  could  hardly 
have  failed  to  supply  the  comic  part  which  his  audiences  had  come  to 
expect.  Lope's  humorous  allusions  to  the  condition  of  the  play  as  he 
found  it  in  his  old  age  seem  to  refer  merely  to  the  sins  of  copyists. 


V. 

The  seventeenth  century  saw  at  least  two  other  plays  named  Domine 
Lucas.  The  first  of  these  was  El  Ddmine  Lucas  y  la  fiesta  en  el  aire, 
described  as  a  'comedia  jocosa  en  castellano  y  latin  macarr<5nico.'  It 
was  written  by  Padre  Pedro  de  Salas  and  was  dated  at  Valladolid,  the 
fourth  of  January,  1618 1.  The  manuscript  of  this  play  is  probably  no 
longer  in  existence ;  but  it  appears  from  the  title  that  Ddmine  Lucas 
had  become  accepted  as  a  type  of  pedant  who  mingled  Latin  with  the 
vernacular.  Lope  had  made  little  use  of  this  idea.  Decio  and  Floriano 
introduce  a  few  scraps  of  Latin  into  their  conversation,  but  that  is  all. 
Tirso,  too,  had  the  good  taste  not  to  introduce  an  undue  amount  of 
Latin  into  the  dialogue,  although  an  occasional  bilingual  pun  is  not 
wanting. 

1  Barrera,  Catdlogo,  Madrid,  1860,  p.  352. 


GEORGE   TYLER   NORTHUP  473 

Another  burlesque  Domine  Lucas  was  written  by  Francisco  Manuel 
de  Melo1.  Barrera  states  vaguely  that  it  still  existed  in  manuscript  in 
the  year  1747. 

The  Domine  Lucas  of  Jose  Canizares,  produced  with  a  most  elaborate 
ballet  in  the  presence  of  the  royal  family  in  the  Buen  Retiro  gardens  on 
the  occasion  of  the  marriage  of  the  Infanta  Maria  Luisa  to  the  Arch- 
duke Leopold  in  1765,  has  no  connection,  other  than  that  of  name,  with 
Lope's  comedy.  This  fact  was  long  ago  pointed  out  by  Don  Vicente 
Garcia  de  la  Huerta,  and  later  by  Ticknor  and  Schaeffer2.  Duran  and 
Paz  y  Melia  are  wrong  in  considering  Canizares's  play  a  reworking  of 
Lope's3.  It  appears  to  be  a  composite  of  several  others.  The  influence 
of  Lope's  Dama  boba  is  plain.  Calderdn's  La  desdicha  de  la  vez 
furnished  another  motive.  The  montane's  was  such  a  stock  character 
in  the  comedia  that  perhaps  the  resemblance  which  Canizares's  play 
bears  to  Calderon's  Guardarse  del  agua  niansa  is  only  accidental. 
However,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Canizares  borrowed  from  a  play 
variously  styled  La  boba  y  el  Vizcaino  and  Encontrarse  dos  arroyuelos. 
This  play  was  published  in  the  Comedias  nuevas  escritas  por  los  mejores 
ingenios  de  Espana  (Madrid,  1665).  It  is  attributed  in  the  index  to 
Don  Juan  Velaz  de  Guevara,  but  a  manuscript  version  of  the  same  play, 
preserved  in  the  Biblioteca  Nacional,  names  Maestro  Antonio  Fajardo 
Azeredo  as  the  author.  In  either  case,  it  was  written  before  the 
Domine  Lucas  of  Canizares.  In  both  plays,  the  two  stock  characters 
of  boba  and  montanes  are  introduced.  Other  characters  are  incidental. 
Canizares's  Domine  Lucas  is  almost  certainly  a  reworking  of  this  play. 
Canizares  doubtless  chose  the  name  Ddmine  Lucas  because  that 
character  had  become  identified  in  the  popular  mind  with  burlesque 
and  musical  ballets.  He  had  degenerated  into  a  hero  of  opera  comique. 
El  Caballero  de  Olmedo  met  with  a  similar  fate.  First  burlesqued,  this 
hero  of  tragedy  ended  by  giving  his  name  to  a  popular  dance4. 

GEORGE  TYLER  NORTHUP. 
PRINCETON,  N.J.,  U.S.A. 


1  Ibid.,  p.  237. 

2  Garcia  de  la  Huerta  is  quoted  to  that  effect  by  the  anonymous  author  of  the  preface 
to  Lope's  D6mine  Lucas,  published  by  Sancha,  Madrid,  1841.     Cf.  Ticknor,  History  of 
Spanish  Literature,  Vol.  if,  New  York,  1854,  p.  428,  note;  and  Schaeffer,  Geschichte  des 
spanischen  Nationaldramas,  Vol.  11,  Leipzig,  1890,  p.  299. 

3  Paz  y  Melia,  Catdlogo,  Madrid,  1899,  p.  150. 

4  Monreal,  Cuadros  viejos,  Madrid,  1878,  p.  86,  note. 


NOTES  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  DRAMATIC  CHARACTER 
OF  THE  'LUDI'  IN  THE  GREAT  WARDROBE 
ACCOUNTS  OF  EDWARD  III. 

THE  first  literary  historian  to  draw  attention  to  the  Great  Wardrobe 
Accounts  of  Edward  III  was  Warton1.  He  interpreted  ludos  domini 
Regis  adfestum  natalis  domini  celebratum2  apud  Guldefordum3  as  'plays 
or  sports  of  the  King,  held  in  the  castle  of  Guildford  at  the  feast  of 
Christmas.'  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  he  regarded  the  ludi 
as  dramatic  to  a  certain  extent  at  least,  and  places  them  in  the  castle, 
though  apud  does  not  necessarily  imply  this.  A  part  of  the  entry, 
xiiij  crestes  cum  tibiis  reversatis  et  calciatis,  xiiij  crestes  cum  montibus 
et  cuniculis,  he  confesses  that  he  does  not  perfectly  understand4.  This 
point  we  shall  take  up  later. 

Collier  is  much  more  positive :  '  In  1348  Edward  III  kept  his 
Christmas  in  the  castle  of  Guildford,  and  there  these  ludi  were 
exhibited:  from  the  nature  of  the  materials  and  properties  furnished 
it  is  sufficiently  evident  that  they  were  of  a  dramatic  character5.' 
Brotanek6,  the  latest  historian  of  the  Masque,  also  classifies  these  ludi 
as  dramatic,  speaking  of  them  as  'Maskeraden'  and  '  Auffiihrungen.' 

In  thus  accepting  the  ludi  as  dramatic,  Brotanek  has  remained  in 
the  common  tradition,  which  has  continued  unbroken  from  the  time  of 
Warton.  The  first  to  question  the  dramatic  nature  of  these  was 
E.  K.  Chambers,  whose  Mediceval  Stage  appeared  a  year  after  Brotanek's 
work  (1903).  Chambers  issues  the  warning  that  the  term  ludi  must 

1  History  of  English  Poetry,  Vol.  n,   pp.  219—220  (Hazlitt's  Edition,   1871).     The 
Accounts  are  printed  in  full  by  Sir  N.  H.  Nicolas  in  ArcJueologia,  Vol.  xxxi,  pp.  1 — 163. 

2  The  original  is  full  of  abbreviations.     Warton  writes  celebrates,  but  the  connection 
seems  to  be  with  festum  rather  than  with  ludos. 

3  Text  in  Archceologia,  Vol.  xxxi,  p.  37.     Printed  also  in  B.  Brotanek,  Die  englischen 
Maskenspiele  (1907),  p.  2,  and  in  E.  K.  Chambers,  The  Medieval  Stage,  Vol.  i,  p.  392. 

4  History  of  English  Poetry,  n,  p.  220,  Note  2. 

5  J.  P.  Collier,  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  Vol.  i,  pp.  22—23. 

6  B.  Brotanek,  Die  englischen  Maskenspiele,  1902. 


ARTHUR   BEATTY  475 

not  be  pressed,  that  it  does  not  necessarily  imply  anything  dramatic, 
and  that  the  analogies  suggest  that  it  is  a  wide  generic  term  roughly 
equivalent  to  '  disport,'  or  the  '  revels '  of  the  Tudor  vocabulary1. 

I  wish  to  present  some  evidence  which  will  tend  to  establish 
Chambers'  contention  that  the  ludi  are  not  dramatic  of  necessity; 
and,  further,  to  show  that  they  are  more  probably  tournaments  than 
'  disports,'  or  '  revels.' 

1.  Edward  III  was  deeply  interested  in  knighthood  and  chivalry. 
His  deepest  passion  seems  to  have  been  the  tournament.     In  the  year 
1348  the  greatest  of  all  English  orders  of  knighthood,  the  Order  of 
the  Garter,  was  founded ;  and  on  important  feasts  like  Christmas  mere 
dramatic  performances  would  scarcely  displace  the  nobler  actions  of 
the  knightly  representatives  of  King  Arthur  and  his  Table  Round2. 
A  further  direct  reason  for  believing  that  tournaments  would  naturally 
grace  such  important  feasts  is  that  they  were  a  royal  prerogative3. 
They  were,  in  a  very  real  sense,  Ludi  domini  Regis. 

2.  Moreover,  the  word  Indus  does  not  necessarily  indicate  anything 
dramatic.     The  meanings  given  in  Du  Cange  under  the  word  ludus 
show  this  very  clearly.     For  instance  under  ludus  natalis  we  find  a 
citation  of  1381  describing  a  sort  of  game  at  single-stick.     Conversely, 
hastiludium,  burdice,  which  is,  of  course,  a  tournament,  is  described 
as  consisting  of  two  sides  in  costumes  very  similar  to  those  of  the  ludi 
in  the  Wardrobe  Accounts4;  and  would  seem  to  break  down  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  ludus  and  the  hastiludium  maintained  by  Chambers5. 

3.  Let  us  consider  the  articles  mentioned  in  the  Accounts  in  some 
detail.     For  the  Christmas  of  1347-1348  the  entry  is  as  follows : 

Et  ad  faciendum  ludos  domini  Regis  ad  festum  Natalis  domini  celebratum  apud 
Guldefordum  anno  Regis  xxi  in  quo  expendebantur  84  tunicae  de  bokeram  divers- 
orum  colorum,  42  viseres  diversorum  similitudinum  (14  similitudines  facierum 
mulierum,  14  similitudines  facierum  hominum  cum  barbis,  14  similitudines  capitum 
angelorum  de  argento),  28  crestes  (14  crestes  cum  tibiis  reversatis  et  calciatis, 
14  crestes  cum  montibus  et  cuniculis6),  14  clocae  depictae,  14  capita  draconum, 
14  tuuicae  albae,  14  capita  pavonum  cum  alis,  14  tunicae  depictae  cum  oculis 
pavonum,  14  capita  cygnorum  cum  suis  alis,  14  tunicae  de  tela  linea  depictae, 
14  tunicae  depictae  cum  stellis  de  auro  et  argento  vapulatis7. 

1  The  Medieval  Stage,  Vol.  i,  pp.  392—393. 

2  See  Sir  N.  H.  Nicolas,  Archceologia,  Vol.  xxxn,  and  History  of  the  Orders  of  Chivalry, 
4  vols.  (1842). 

3  See  the  numerous  prohibitions  of  tournaments  in  Kymer,  Fcedera,  passim. 

4  Under  Burdice  in  Du  Cange:    '...una  pars  in  habitu  monachal!  veniret,  et  altera 
pars  in  habitu  canonical!' — de  Gestis  Edwardi  I. 

s  The  Medieval  Stage,  i,  392. 

6  This  item,  which  puzzled  Warton  (op.  cit.,  n,  220),  refers  to  coats  of  arms  which 
contain  the  not  unfamiliar  devices  of  legs  reversed  and  shod,  and  mountains  and  conies. 

7  Archceologia,  xxxi,  p.  37. 


476         Supposed  Dramatic  Character  of  the  'Ludi' 

For  the  Christmas  of  1348-1349  the  following  articles  are  provided : 

Et  ad  faciendum  ludos  Regis  ad  festum  Xatalis  domini  anno  Regis  xxii  cele- 
bratum  apud  Ottefordum,  ubi  expendebantur  viseres,  videlicet,  12  capita  hominum 
et  desuper  tot  capita  leonum,  12  capita  hominum  et  tot  capita  elephantum,  12  capita 
hominum  cum  alis  vespertilionum,  12  capita  de  wodewose,  17  capita  virginum, 
14  supertunicae  de  worsted  rubro...et  totidem  tunicae  de  worsted  viridi1. 

For  Epiphany,  1349,  we  have  the  following  entry : 

Et  ad  faciendum  ludos  Regis  in  festo  Epiphaniae  domini  celebrato  apud  Mertonum 
ubi  expendebantur  13  visers  cum  capitibus  draconum  et  13  visers  cum  capitibus 
hominum  habentibus  dyadernata2. 

This  concludes  the  entries  referring  to  ludi.  Those  referring  to 
hastiludia  are  more  numerous — there  are  some  twelve  in  all — but  they 
are  much  more  summary.  However,  in  these  entries  are  mentioned 
visors3,  tunics4,  and  hoods5.  These,  especially  the  visors,  play  an 
important  part  in  the  ludi,  and  have  been  made  much  of  by  those 
who  have  contended  for  the  dramatic  character  of  these  festivities. 
From  the  entries  in  the  Wardrobe  Accounts,  they  seem  to  be  an 
important  part  of  the  equipment  of  the  hastiludia  as  well. 

In  some  of  the  entries  concerning  the  hastiludia,  some  of  the  equip- 
ment is  referred  to  in  general  terms  as  'necessaries,'  or  'divers  articles6.' 
What  these  were  we  can  see  from  another  source7.  The  equipment  of 
a  knight  consisted  of  (1)  a  tunic;  (2)  a  sur-coat,  or  over-tunic;  (3)  a  pair 
of  ailettes,  i.e.  little  wings  at  the  shoulders ;  (4)  a  crest ;  (5)  a  shield ; 
(6)  a  helmet  of  leather ;  (7)  a  sword  of  balon.  In  this  list  we  have  all 
the  articles  mentioned  in  the  entries  concerning  the  ludi  at  Guildford, 
Otford,  and  Merton. 

4.  Moreover,  the  groupings  of  the  articles  in  the  entries  point  to 
a  tournament  rather  than  to  a  dramatic  spectacle.  'It  is  material 
to  remember  that  the  encounters  at  Tournaments  and  Jousts  consisted 
of  two  parties,  the  challengers  and  the  challenged,... each  party  being 
led  by  its  own  chief,  and  all  wearing  precisely  the  same  dress  and 
ornaments.  Some  peculiar  object  was  selected  as  the  predominant 
Symbol  or  Badge  for  each  Joust,  which  was  worn  by  all  who  tilted ; 
and  the  members  of  each  party  were  considered  to  belong  to,  and  to ' 
form  the  Companions  of,  its  leader8.' 

The  number  in  a  party  varied  from  about  five  to  forty,  twelve  to 
twenty  being  the  more  usual  number.  The  Indus  at  Guildford  would 

1  Archceologia,  xxxi,  43.  2  Archaologia,  xxxi,  43. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  29,  30,  39.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  26—29. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  6,  26—29.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  30,  40,  41. 

'  Ibid.,  xvn,  pp.  299—304.  «  Ibid.,  xxxi,  p.  113. 


ARTHUR   BE  ATT  Y  477 

thus  provide  for  eight  parties  of  fourteen  each ;  that  at  Otford  for  eight 
parties  of  twelve  each  (with  the  exception  of  the  seventeen  '  virgins' 
heads');  and  that  at  Merton  for  two  parties  of  thirteen  each. 

This  interpretation  of  the  Indus  as  a  tournament  gives  a  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  entry  concerning  the  twenty-eight  crests,  in  the 
Guildford  Indus,  which  puzzled  Warton  and  which  has  been  passed  over 
in  silence  by  all  his  successors.  They  are  simply  insignia  of  two  parties, 
just  as  the  various  visors  (faces  of  women,  faces  of  men,  heads  of  angels) 
and  heads  (of  dragons,  of  peacocks,  of  swans)  are  the  insignia  of  six 
other  parties.  To  the  rather  obvious  objection  that  the  costumes 
required  by  this  interpretation  of  the  entry  are  absurd,  it  is  necessary 
only  to  refer  to  what  the  tournament  had  become  by  Sidney's  day, 
when  he  fought  as  one  of  the  Four  Foster-Children  of  Desire. 

5.  A  later  piece  of  evidence,  dating  from  about  1450,  shows  that 
the  tournament  had  a  feature  which  has  been  supposed  to  be  peculiar 
to  the  masque  in  its  later  developments;  namely,  the  unmasking  and 
the  dancing  between  the  jousters  and  the  ladies.  A  manual  of  the 
tournament  thus  gives  the  order  of  procedure : 

And  when  the  herawdes  krye  a  lostell,  a  lostell  [i.e.,  to  the  lodging,  or  tiring- 
house]  then  shall  all  the  six  gentlemen  within  [i.e.,  the  six  challengers,  as  contrasted 
with  the  six  'gentlemen  without'  who  accept  the  challenge]  unhelme  them  before 
the  seide  ladyes  [i.e.,  the  'ladies  within,'  the  ladies  of  the  'gentlemen  within']  and 
make  their  obeisance,  and  go  home  unto  their  logging  &  chaunge  the...  [Unfinished 
in  MS.] 

Then  shall  come  the  women  without  to  the  ladies  within,  and  one  shall  present 
the  prizes  to  the  three  gentlemen  without  who  have  jousted  best... 

Then  shall  he  that  the  diamaunt  is  geve  unto  [i.e.,  the  first  prize]  take  a  lady  by 
the  hande  and  begynne  the  daunce.  And  whan  thee  ladyes  have  dauncid  as  long 
as  them  likith,  than  spyce  wyne  and  drynk  and  than  avoyde J. 

It  seems  not  improbable  that  in  the  festivities  of  Edward  III  the 
ladies  may  have  taken  a  part ;  as  we  see,  for  instance,  that,  at  the  hasti- 
ludium  at  Lichfield2,  two  hundred  and  eighty-eight  visors  were  provided 
for  the  women.  The  ludi  were  no  doubt  glorious  spectacles,  when 
judged  by  the  taste  of  the  time;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason 
for  supposing  that  they  were  in  any  proper  sense  dramatic. 

ARTHUR  BEATTY. 

MADISON,  WISCONSIN,  U.S.A. 

1  Archceologia,  Vol.  xvn,  p.  294.  2  Ibid.,  Vol.  xxxi,  p.  29. 


THE   ALLITERATION   OF   'PIERS   PLOWMAN.' 

AN  EXAMINATION  AND  COMPARISON  OF  THE  THREE  TEXTS. 

THE  following  examination  has  been  conducted  partly  on  the  lines 
of  Rosenthal's  examination  which  appeared  in  Anglia  I.  It  was  im- 
possible, however,  to  work  from  his  tables,  even  so  far  as  they  went, 
because  of  his  peculiar  system  of  stress  allotment  and  his  refusal  to 
recognise  that  the  alliteration  often  falls  on  wholly  unaccented  syllables. 
The  whole  ground  has  therefore  been  examined  afresh. 

It  is  difficult  to  lay  down  fixed  rules  for  such  work ;  e.g.,  it  would 
probably  be  doing  injustice  to  the  poet's  intention  if  we  considered  that 
he  had  increased  the  normal  number  of  rhyme  letters  every  time  an 
insignificant  word  happened  to  begin  with  the  rhyme-letter  in  addition 
to  the  three  regular  stressed  alliterating  syllables.  I  have  tried  to  be 
consistent  in  reckoning  an  extra  rhyme-letter  only  when  the  word  was 
one  of  some  importance — noun,  verb,  etc. — or  when  it  bore  some  amount 
of  verse  or  sentence  stress. 

As  regards  the  text,  Skeat's  two  volume  edition  of  1886  has  been 
used,  but  it  seemed  best  to  adhere  as  closely  as  possible  to  one  MS.  for 
each  version.  For  A  I  have  kept  to  the  Vernon  MS.  as  far  as  it  goes, 
then  the  Trinity,  and  for  Passus  xii  the  Rawlinson.  For  B  the  Laud 
MS.  has  been  used,  and  for  C  the  Phillipps.  These  have  never  been 
departed  from  for  the  sake  of  improving  the  metre,  but  only  when 
there  was  an  evident  scribal  error  and  the  sense  demanded  some  other 
reading.  This  has  necessitated  the  frequent  restoration  of  readings 
given  in  Dr  Skeat's  footnotes,  such  restoration  being  far  more  frequent 
in  A  than  in  B  or  C. 

Professor  Manly  has  said  that  an  examination  of  the  alliteration 
would  help  to  prove  his  theory  of  fivefold  authorship,  but  the  result 
of  this  investigation  tends  rather  in  the  opposite  direction.  On  the 


MARY    DEAKIN  479 

whole,  a  steady  development  along  various  lines  is  evident  and  to  make 
this  clear  the  additional  matter  occurring  in  the  C  text,  amounting 
to  about  1340  lines,  has  been  considered  separately.  The  two  parts  of 
A  (divided  at  the  points  where  Professor  Manly  thinks  he  sees  a  change) 
viz.,  A.  Prol.  I — A.  vm.  134,  and  A.  vin.  135 — A.  Xli.  56  are  referred  to 
as  Aj  and  A2 :  •  C,  omitting  long  new  passages,  as  d  and  the  collected 
additional  lines  as  C2. 

The  scheme  of  alliteration  is  the  usual  one  of  a  a.  ax,  but  in  all 
three  versions  the  poet  has  varied  this  rather  freely,  sometimes  adding 
an  extra  rhyme-letter,  sometimes  omitting  one,  occasionally  writing  a 
line  without  any  alliteration  at  all,  and  also  indulging  in  lines  which 
have  two  rhyme-letters :  aa.bb',  ab.ab;  orab.ba. 

1.  Increase  of  number  of  rhyme-letters. 

(a)  More  than  two  rhyme-letters  in  the  first  half  verse.  This  is 
the  most  frequent  variation  from  the  norm,  and  occurs  in  very  even 
proportion  in  the  two  parts  of  A,  in  B  and  in  Ci  and  C2,  since  in  all  five 
it  never  falls  below  8  °/0  of  the  lines  and  never  reaches  9  °/0 .  There  is 
a  gradual  though  slight  increase,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following: 
A!  8-04  :  A2  8-58  :  B  873  :  d  8'63  :  C2  8'92. 

(&)  More  than  one  rhyme-letter  in  the  second  half  verse.  Here 
there  is  less  agreement,  the  percentage  varying  from  6'58  to  5'28.  It 
is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  difference  between  Ax  and  A2,  5'74  °/0 
and  6'58  °/0  respectively,  is  less  than  the  difference  between  Ci  and  C2, 
the  proportion  in  the  latter  case  being  6'49  to  5*28. 

2.  Decrease  of  number  of  rhyme-letters. 

(a)  The  first  rhyme-letter  missing  (xa .  ax).  The  proportion  de- 
creases regularly  from  2*7  %  in  -A-i  *°  l'-86  in  C2,  except  that  A2  gives 
the  astonishing  result  of  5'44.  One  has  to  remember,  however,  that  in 
A2  we  have  to  draw  conclusions  from  a  very  small  number  of  lines 
— 735 — the  other  sections  being  much  larger.  Differences  almost  as 
great  appear  between  the  first  two  Visions  of  A  and  between  two 
sections  of  B :  e.g.  the  part  of  B  which  corresponds  with  A  has  the 
rhyme  of  h  and  vowel  in  2'88  °/0  of  its  lines,  while  the  passage  B.  xix 
and  xx  has  S'22%.' 

(6)  The  second  rhyme-letter  missing  (ax.  ax).  Here  we  have  a 
very  regular  decrease  from  2'43  %  iQ  ^-i  t°  1'35  %  in  d.  d  has  a 
slight  rise  to  T56  °/0. 


480  The  Alliteration  of  'Piers  Plowman' 

(c)  The  third  rhyme-letter  missing  (aa.xx).  A  more  frequent 
variation,  ranging  from  4'52  to  2'48°/0.  Like  2(6)  it  gradually  de- 
creases, but  rises  somewhat  in  C2. 

3.  Lines  containing  two  rhyme-letters. 

aa.bb.  For  such  an  unusual  construction  this  variation  is  rather 
frequent.  Beginning  in  Aj  at  2'09  %  it  decreases  with  perfect  regu- 
larity throughout  the  second  part  of  A  and  the  B  and  C  texts, 
descending  in  C2  to  I'll  %•  Little  importance  can  be  attached  to  the 
variations  ab.ab  and  ab.ba,  as  though  they  both  occur  in  all  three 
texts  and  in  both  parts  of  A,  the  number  of  cases  in  each  is  very  small. 
Yet  the  latter  order  is,  on  the  whole,  very  evenly  distributed1. 

4.  h  rhyming  with  a  vowel. 

This  increases  steadily  from  2'74  %  in  AI  to  4'31  in  C2  except  that 
there  is  a  slight  decrease  in  A2. 

5.  s  rhyming  with  sh  or  sch. 

Here  we  have  a  perfectly  regular  decrease  from  T53  %  to  '14. 

6.  The  rhyming  together  of  f  and  v. 

This  is  found  throughout,  increasing  in  the  later  texts,  though  never 
very  frequent.  Professor  Skeat  in  his  edition  of  text  C  (E.  E.  T.  S.,  1873) 
attached  great  importance  to  this  peculiarity  because  of  its  extreme 
rarity  in  other  alliterative  poems,  and  regarded  it  as  a  connecting  link 
between  the  three  texts. 

Rosenthal  has  also  mentioned  the  rhyming  of  w  with  v  in  romance 
words.  This  is  of  so  rare  occurrence,  there  being  only  about  eight 
cases  in  the  whole  of  the  three  texts,  that  one  can  scarcely  be  quite 
certain  that  it  is  intentional.  The  rhyming  of  f  with  w  is  scarcely 
more  frequent  and  it  therefore  offers  no  definite  evidence. 

7.  c  (/c)  rhyming  with  ch. 

Whether  any  importance  can  be  attached  to  this  is  doubtful.  Of 
the  eight  or  nine  cases  occurring  in  the  first  part  of  A,  five  are  due  to 
the  spelling  '  churche '  which  in  B  is  usually  represented  by  '  kirke.' 
In  B  words  beginning  with  k  are  made  to  rhyme  with  '  churche '  three 
times  and  with  other  wyords  beginning  with  ch  twice. 

Out  of  twenty-five  cases  of  this  rhyme  in  C  twenty-one  depend 

1  There  is  some  irregularity  in  the  first  of  these  and  a  little  in  the  second,  but  less 
than  that  between  the  first  two  Visions  of  A  and  the  two  parts  of  B  mentioned  under  2  (a). 


MARY    DEAKIN  481 

on  the  word  '  churche,'  which  in  nearly  every  case  is  found  in  many  of 
the  other  MSS.  as  'kirke.'  The  six  cases  in  C2  are  all  'churche'  cases1. 
As  this  is  a  matter  which  is  likely  to  depend  chiefly  on  the 
individual  preference  of  the  scribe,  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from  the 
somewhat  unequal  distribution  of  this  rhyme. 

8.  The  rhyming  together  of  k  (c)  and  g. 

This  is  found  in  all  the  five  sections  but  is  not  frequent  in  any.  It 
decreases  somewhat  irregularly. 

9.  Lines  without  any  rhyme-letter. 

This  is  a  variation  which  increases  steadily  from  '35  °/0  to  '89  °/0 
but  it  sinks  a  little  in  d-  It  is  worth  while  noting  a  new  passage  in 
C2,  I.  95 — 124,  in  which  no  less  than  eight  cases  occur. 

10.  Another  point  which  up  till  now  has  received  little  attention  is 
that  in  all  parts  of  the  poem  many  lines  occur  which  have  the  same 
rhyme-letters  three  times,  but  not  in  the  order  a  a.  ace.     One  of  the 
most  frequent  of  these  is  a  line  bearing  three  rhyme-letters  in  the  first 
half  verse  and  none  in  the  second.    It  occurs  fairly  regularly  throughout, 
never  much  above  or  below  1  °/0.     The  forms  aca.aa  and  aac.aa  are 
less  frequent  but  also  occur  throughout,  the  first  increasing  slightly  and 
regularly  except  for  A2,  and  the  second  decreasing  slightly  and  regularly. 
The  form  aa.xa,  noticed  by  Schipper,  is  met  with  oftener  than  the 
others,  increasing  regularly  arid  very  slightly  from  1'55  °/0  in  A1  to 
l'7l  °/0  in  C2,  except  that  it  sinks  to  1*19  in  B. 

11.  A  liking  for  intricate  alliteration  displays  itself  in*  all  three 
texts,  especially  in  long  lines  bearing  one  or  two  secondary  stresses. 
Forms    like    the    following   appear   occasionally   throughout,   aa.abb, 
aa.bab,  aab.ab,  and  aab.abb. 

12.  A  more  important  consideration  than  any  single  one  of  the 
foregoing  is  the  placing  of  the  rhyme-letter  on  a  syllable  bearing  weak 
or  secondary  stress2.     This  is  found  most  frequently  in  the  second  half 
line.     A  very  common  case  is  the  placing  of  the  third  rhyme-letter  on  a 
preposition  in  the  anacrusis,  as  : 

And  zcikkede  weyes  •  with  here  good  amende, 

And  faygges  to&roke  •  by  the  heye  weyes.  C.  x.  31,  32. 

1  B  and  C  use  both  '  kirke '  and  '  churche,'  B  preferring  the  former;  C,  if  we  limit  our- 
selves to  the  Phillipps  MS.,  the  latter.    'Kirke '  does  not,  I  believe,  occur  at  all  in  A.    B  has 
'kirke'  or  'churche'  as  the  alliteration  needs  k  or  ch :  some  of  the  C  MSS.  follow  in  this. 

2  That  this  occurs  is  acknowledged  by  Skeat  and  by  Luick,  though  Bosenthal  denies 
that  alliteration  can  fall  on  weak  stress  syllables. 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  31 


482  The  Alliteration  of  'Piers  Plowman' 

But  the  alliteration  is  sometimes  made  to  fall  on  a  conjunction  or 
even  a  particle : 

.Folweden  him  /aste  -/or  thei  hedden  to  done.          A.  iv.  85. 
TVeuthe  herde  tells  her-of -and  to  Peres  he  sent.       B.  vn.  1. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  prologue  in  the  A  text  this  is  by  no  means 
common,  but  it  increases  in  frequency  with  remarkable  steadiness 
throughout  the  whole  of  A,  only  pulling  up  a  little  now  and  then  at  the 
beginning  of  a  Passus.  The  slackening  of  regard  for  the  relation 
between  alliteration  and  stress  is  continued  in  B  in  which  also  it 
increases,  and  so  in  C,  until  in  the  new  parts  of  the  latter  this  relation 
is  sometimes  quite  obscured  and  one  pauses  to  consider  whether  a  line 
shall  be  held  to  be  without  alliteration,  so  inconspicuous  are  the  rhyme- 
letters. 

It  will  be  seen  from  what  has  been  said  that  there  are  no  really 
striking  differences  in  the  alliteration  of  the  various  parts  of  the  poem. 
Most  variations  from  the  norm  are  very  evenly  distributed  or  show  a 
fairly  regular  increase  or  decrease  in  the  successive  versions,  which 
would  often  be  perfectly  regular  but  for  A2.  It  has  been  shown  that 
the  differences  between  the  two  parts  of  A  are  no  greater  than  may  be 
found  in  other  parts  of  the  poem  if  we  take  passages  equally  short.  It 
must  also  be  remembered  that  not  only  does  A  consist  of  two  separate 
works,  the  second  written  probably  after  an  interval  of  a  few  years,  but 
that  the  examination  of  this  second  work  is  founded  on  three  different 
MSS.1 

In  almost  every  case  of  inequality  between  Aj  and  A2  or  of  interrup- 
tion of  an  otherwise  regular  development  it  will  be  found  that  P.  XI, 
part  of  which  is  from  the  Trinity  MS.  and  P.  xn  from  the  Rawlinson, 
show  an  undue  proportion  of  the  variation  in  question. 

On  the  whole,  the  alliteration  of  the  new  lines  in  C  is  slightly,  very 
slightly,  more  correct  than  in  the  first  part  of  A.  A  glance  at 
Rosenthal's  tables  would  lead  one  to  imagine  that  the  difference  was 
great,  but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  while  the  poet  revised  and 
amended  former  incorrect  lines,  he  wrote  many  new  lines  containing 
the  old  errors. 

One  important  point  remains  to  be  noticed.  While  the  C  text  is 
slightly  more  correct  in  furnishing  the  exact  number  of  rhyme-letters 
in  the  regular  order,  these  are  more  often  than  in  A,  and  rather  more 

1  An  examination  founded  on  Skeat's  text  shows  much  less  variation  between  the  two 
parts. 


MARY  DEAKIN  483 

often  than  in  B,  placed  on  syllables  bearing  secondary  or  weak  stress. 
The  senkung  is  very  often  enlarged,  so  that  there  are  more  words  in  the 
line,  which,  once  we  grant  that  the  alliteration  need  not  always  coincide 
with  the  chief  stress,  makes  the  task  of  finding  suitable  words  much 
easier.  As  a  result,  the  effect  of  this  later  work  is  not  so  decidedly 
alliterative  as  that  of  the  earlier;  the  alliteration  has  now  become 
almost  as  much  a  matter  for  the  eye  as  for  the  ear. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  exactly  what  one  would  expect  from  a 
man  writing  over  and  over  again,  as  he  advanced  in  years,  a  poem  of 
this  type.  Never  primarily  concerned  with  form,  it  was  most  natural 
that,  as  the  years  went  by  and  he  grew  graver  and  still  more  concerned 
with  moral  ideas,  he  should  care  less  and  less  about  metrical  effect, 
though  long  habit  and  the  continual  presence  of  the  poem  in  his  mind 
and  before  his  eyes  would  prevent  technical  matters  being  neglected 
to  any  very  serious  extent. 

This  examination  appears  to  prove  that  the  alliteration  gives  no 
support  to  Professor  Manly's  theory.  The  differences  between  the 
texts  are  never  very  striking,  even  if  they  stood  alone  and  entirely 
unexplained,  while  the  similarities  are  many,  the  gradual  increases  and 
decreases  being  especially  striking  and  suggestive  of  the  gradual 
development  of  a  single  artist.  At  least,  I  think,  it  will  be  admitted 
that  the  alliteration  gives  no  conclusive  evidence  one  way  or  the  other; 
but  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  seems  to  me  to  tend  distinctly  in  favour  of  the 
old  '  one-man '  theory. 

MARY  DEAKIN. 

MANCHESTER. 


31—2 


ANTHONY   MUNDAY,    PAMPHLETEER   AND 
PURSUIVANT. 

I.    THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD  BLAST. 

MUNDAY'S  activity,  like  that  of  many  men  of  similar  calibre  in 
modern  Russia,  seems  to  have  been  chiefly  divided  between  journalism 
and  espionage.  In  1578  he  visited  Rome,  ostensibly  as  a  convert  to 
Romanism,  but  really  as  a  spy  bent  on  penetrating  the  secrets  of  the 
English  seminary  where  he  was  unsuspectingly  received  and  kindly 
treated.  Probably  he  was  not  yet  in  the  service  of  Elizabeth's  govern- 
ment, and  Mr  Seccombe  suggests  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Bio- 
graphy that  the  object  of  his  visit  to  Rome  was  simply  to  get 
interesting  '  copy '  for  his  master  John  Allde,  the  stationer,  to  whom 
in  October,  1576,  he  had  been  bound  apprentice  for  eight  years. 
Perhaps  his  experiences  in  Rome  called  the  government's  attention  to 
his  qualifications,  for  in  1582  he  had  become  one  of  the  regular  agents 
for  ferreting  out  popish  plots  and  running  priests  to  earth.  Richard 
Topcliffe  the  head  of  this  department  described  him  to  the  queen's 
serjeant,  John  Puckering,  as  a  man  '  who  wants  no  sort  of  wit ' ;  but 
Munday's  undoubted  abilities  were  not  counterbalanced  by  any  weight 
of  honesty,  for  we  find  him  succumbing  to  the  standing  temptation 
of  his  profession — extortion  by  blackmail.  This,  however,  did  not 
impair  his  reputation  with  the  authorities,  for  in  1584  he  is  spoken 
of  as  '  one  of  the  messengers  of  her  majestie's  chamber,'  and  he  seems 
from  this  time  forward  to  have  been  regularly  employed  as  a  pursuivant, 
especially  in  all  cases  of  recusancy  and  religious  trouble. 

Munday's  pen  was  one  of  the  busiest  of  the  age,  and  his  anti-papal 
work  soon  led  to  publication.  The  execution  of  Campion  took  place  in 
December,  1581.  On  January  29, 1582,  a  tract  appeared  from  Munday's 
hand  entitled  A  Discoverie  of  Edmund  Campion... published  by  A.  M. 
sometime  the  Popes  Scholler,  allowed  in  the  seminarie  at  Roome  amongst 
them.  Within  a  few  weeks  a  reply  appeared  by  one  describing  himself 
as  '  a  Catholike  preist '  under  the  title  of  A  true  reporte  of  the  death 
and  martyrdome  of  M.  Campion...  The  interest  of  this  tract  is  in  the 


JOHN   DOVER    WILSON  485 

aspersions  it  makes  upon  Munday's  character.  On  sig.  D  4V  appears 
'  A  caueat  to  the  reader  touching  A.  M.  his  discouery,'  a  sentence  of 
which  runs  as  follows: — 'Anthony  Munday...who  first  was  a  stage 
player  (no  doubt  a  calling  of  some  creditt)  [marginal  note  'Northbroukes 
booke  against  plaiers ']  after  an  aprentise  which  tyme  he  wel  feined 
with  deceauing  of  his  master  then  wandring  towardes  Italy,  by  his 
owne  reporte  became  a  coosener  in  his  iourney.  Comming  to  Rome,  in 
his  short  abode  there,  was  charitably  relieued,  but  neuer  admitted  in 
the  seminary  as  he  pleseth  to  lye  in  the  title  of  his  booke,  and  being 
wery  of  well  doing,  returned  home  to  his  first  vomite  againe.  I  omite 
to  declare  howe  this  scholler  new  come  out  of  Italy  did  play  extempore, 
those  gentlemen  and  others  whiche  were  present,  can  best  giue  witnes 
of  his  dexterity,  who  being  wery  of  his  folly,  hissed  him  from  his  stage. 
Then  being  thereby  discouraged,  he  set  forth  a  balet  against  playes, 
but  yet  (o  constant  youth)  he  now  beginnes  againe  to  ruffle  upon  the 
stage.'  In  a  pamphlet,  of  which  the  address  '  to  the  reader '  is  signed 
'  22  March  1582,'  Munday  replied  both  to  this  defence  of  Campion  and 
another  which  had  appeared  in  French.  On  sig.  D  iij  of  his  Breefe 
Aunswer  made  unto  two  seditious  Pamphlets  appears  a  section  entitled 
'  An  answere  to  his  caueat  concerning  me  and  my  Discouerie.'  By  way 
of  rebutting  the  accusation  quoted  above,  Munday  prints  an  unsolicited 
testimonial  to  his  behaviour  from  his  late  master  John  Allde  and 
repeats  his  former  statement  that  he  had  been  received  into  the 
English  seminary  at  Rome.  But,  and  this  is  the  striking  point,  he 
keeps  a  discreet  silence  concerning  the  extempore  play,  its  unfortunate 
conclusion  and  the  subsequent  '  balet  against  plays.'  We  may  therefore 
conclude  that  this  part  at  least  of  '  a  catholike  preist's '  indictment  was 
substantially  correct. 

There  are  several  points  of  interest  in  this  indictment.  First  it 
may  be  noticed  how  ready  the  '  catholike '  is  to  adopt  the  puritan's 
attitude  towards  the  stage.  He  supports  his  sarcastic  remark  upon 
the  dignity  of  the  acting  profession  by  a  reference  to  Northbroke's 
Treatise  against  dicing,  dancing,  vain  plays  and  interludes,  and  the 
reference  shows  how  famous  that  book,  published  in  1577,  had  already 
become.  Again,  the  phrase  '  returned  home  to  his  first  vomite  againe  ' 
is  curiously  similar  to  a  remark  of  Gosson's  in  his  Playes  Confuted  in 
Five  Actions  (1582).  After  giving  certain  reasons  which  induced  him 
to  take  up  the  pen  for  the  second  time  against  the  stage  Gosson  says  : — 
'  Beside  this,  hauing  once  already  writte  against  playes,  which  no  ma 
that  euer  wrote  plaies,  did,  but  one,  who  hath  chaged  his  coppy,  and 


486       Anthony  Munday,  Pamphleteer  and  Pursuivant 

turned  himself  like  ye  dog  to  his  vomite  to  plays  again.  And  being 
falsly  accused  my  self  to  do  ye  like,  it  is  needfull  for  me  to  write 
againe1.'  The  similarity  of  phrasing  may  be  accidental,  but  I  am 
convinced  that  Gosson  and  the  'catholike  preist'  are  referring  to  the 
same  man. 

Gosson's  first  book  against  the  stage,  The  School  of  Abuse,  had  been 
published  in  the  autumn  of  1579.  Between  this  date  and  1582,  when 
Playes  Confuted  appeared,  two  attacks  were  made  upon  the  stage,  the 
first  the  famous  Second  and  third  blast  of  retreat  from  plays  and  theatres 
which  was  licensed  on  October  18, 1580,  to  Henry  Denham,  and  the  second, 

A  Ringing  Retraite  courageouslie  sounded 
Wherein  Plaies  and  Players  are  fytlie  confounded, 

licensed  to  Edward  White  on  November  10  of  the  same  year.  The 
latter  has  not  been  preserved  for  us,  but  it  was  obviously  a  ballad,  and 
it  is  generally  assumed,  with  every  show  of  probability,  that  the  said 
ballad  was  identical  with  the  '  balet  against  plays '  referred  to  in  the 
True  Reporte.  Certainly  we  know  of  no  other  ballad  which  would  tally 
with  the  description,  and  it  may  be  noticed  that  the  licensee  Edward 
White  was  the  publisher  of  Munday's  Discoverie  of  Edmund  Campion. 
But  Mr  Fleay  has  gone  a  step  further  than  this  and  attributed  the 
pamphlet  as  well  as  the  ballad  to  Anthony  Munday2.  As  this  view  has 
been  called  in  question,  in  particular  by  Dr  Thompson  the  most  recent 
authority  upon  the  puritans  and  the  stage3,  it  is  worth  while  considering 
for  a  moment  the  reasons  for  and  against  the  theory. 

First  of  all,  we  have  the  similarity  between  the  title  of  the  tract 
and  that  of  the  ballad.  This  suggests  a  common  author  but  does 
nothing  more,  since  a  ballad  writer  would  be  quite  likely  to  steal  or 
adapt  a  title  from  a  book  that  had  recently  appeared.  We  should  rest 
our  argument  rather  upon  the  words  already  quoted  from  Gosson.  The 
Second  and  Third  Blast  was  an  important  book.  It  was  the  first  book 
that  had  been  entirely  devoted  to  attacking  the  theatre.  It  was 
obviously  inspired  by  the  civic  authorities  and  even  bore  the  arms  of 
the  corporation  on  its  title-page.  It  would  be  impossible  that  Gosson, 
who  followed  the  battle  between  player  and  puritan  very  closely,  could 
have  been  ignorant  of  its  existence.  Now  the  author  of  the  Third 
Blast  (the  Second  was  a  translation  from  Salvian)  expressly  informs  us 
that  he  had  been  '  a  great  affecter  of  that  vaine  Art  of  plaie  making,' 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama  and  Stage,  p.  212. 

2  History  of  the  Stage,  pp.  51,  52. 

3  Controversy  between  the  Puritans  and  the  Stage,  New  York,  1903,  pp.  68,  86 — 7. 


JOHN   DOVER   WILSON  487 

to  which  the  editor  of  the  book  adds  the  remark:  'Yea... as  excellent 
an  Autor  of  those  vanities,  as  who  was  best1.'  When  therefore  Gosson 
tells  us  that  besides  himself  no  playwright  had  ever  written  against 
plays  except  one,  we  are  forced  to  conclude  that  he  is  referring  to  the 
author  of  the  Third  Blast,  and  when  he  goes  on  to  say  that  the  man 
had  afterwards  gone  back  to  work  for  the  stage  once  more,  we  are 
inevitably  reminded  of  the  words  of  the  True  Reporte.  Munday  had 
not  only  acted  but  written  plays,  and  the  story  of  the  '  extempore  play ' 
supplies  a  motive  for  a  temporary  disgust  with  the  stage.  The  city 
was  at  this  time  setting  on  foot  one  of  its  great  campaigns  against  the 
theatre,  and  would  probably  be  ready  to  pay  for  a  tract  written  on  its 
side  of  the  question.  Everything  in  fact  points  to  Munday  as  the 
author  of  the  Third  Blast,  and  provides  ample  reasons  for  his  authorship. 
Finally,  the  similarity  between  the  titles,  taken  together  with  Gosson's 
definite  statement  that  only  one  person  connected  with  the  stage  had 
written  against  it  beside  himself,  indicate  that  the  ballad  and  the  tract 
were  from  the  same  pen. 

The  only  argument  against  the  theory  is  that  Munday  returned  to 
the  stage  in  1580,  and  therefore  could  not  have  written  the  Third  Blast 
at  the  end  of  that  year.  But  this  argument,  if  valid,  would  be  equally 
telling  against  Munday 's  authorship  of  the  ballad,  which  no  one  seems 
inclined  to  dispute.  The  objection  seems  to  rest  upon  Munday 's  descrip- 
tion of  himself  as  'a  servant  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford,'  in  A  Viewe  of  Sundry 
Examples,  printed  in  1580.  To  this  it  may  be  replied  first,  that  the 
year  at  that  time  was  generally  reckoned  as  ending  not  on  the 
31st  December,  but  on  the  25th  March  following,  so  that  there  would 
have  been  plenty  of  time  for  Munday  to  repent  of  his  repentance  and 
'  return  to  his  vomit '  before  the  year  ran  out ;  secondly,  that  '  servant 
of  the  Earl  of  Oxford'  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  Munday  was 
a  member  of  the  Earl's  acting  company.  The  Earl  of  Oxford  was  very 
free  with  his  patronage,  and  at  this  time  attracted  many  young  men 
into  his  service,  and  among  them  John  Lyly,  who  was  apparently 
engaged  in  secretarial  work2.  It  is  in  any  case  absurd  to  credit  Munday 
with  the  ballad  licensed  November  10  and  refuse  to  admit  that  he  could 
have  written  the  Third  Blast,  licensed  October  18. 

That  a  man  like  Munday  should  be  pressed  into  the  city's  service  to 
write  against  the  stage  is  a  curious  commentary  upon  the  general 
conduct  of  the  puritan  campaign. 

1  Hazlitt,  op.  cit.,  pp.  100,  101. 

2  See  the  present  writer's  John  Lyly,  pp.  7,  28. 


488       Anthony  Munday,  Pamphleteer  and  Pursuivant 

II.    THE  MARPRELATE  CONTROVERSY. 

That  Munday  had  not  in  reality  the  slightest  sympathy  with  the 
puritan  cause  is  shown  by  the  part  that  he  played  in  the  Marprelate 
controversy — a  chapter  in  his  career  that  has,  I  believe,  hitherto  passed 
unnoticed.  The  author  of  An  Almond  for  a  Parrat  (spring,  1590),  the 
last  of  the  replies  on  the  episcopal  side  to  the  Marprelate  tracts,  bids 
Martin  '  beware  Anthony  Munday  be  not  euen  with  you  for  calling  him 
ludas,  and  lay  open  your  false  carding  to  the  stage  of  all  mens  scorne1.' 
This  may  perhaps  be  read  as  a  threat  to  renew  the  anti-Martinist  plays 
which  had  been  suppressed  in  the  autumn  of  1589,  and  it  has  been 
suggested  that  the  threat  was  actually  carried  into  effect  in  the  form  of 
A  Merry  knack  to  know  a  knave2.  The  words  of  An  Almond  were,  in 
any  case,  a  reply  to  one  of  Martin's  flings  in  The  Reproof  of  Martin 
Junior  commonly  known  as  Martin  Senior.  On  sig.  A  2V  of  this  Martin 
gives  us  '  an  oration  of  lohn  Canturburie  to  the  pursuivants,  when  he 
directeth  his  warrants  unto  them  to  post  after  Martin.'  Anthony 
Munday  is  the  first  pursuivant  to  be  addressed,  and  the  following  words 
are  put  into  Whitgifb's  mouth  concerning  him :  '  I  thanke  you  Maister 
Munday,  you  are  a  good  Gentleman  of  your  worde.  Ah  thou  ludas, 
thou  that  hast  alreadie  betrayed  the  Papistes,  I  thinke  meanest  to 
betray  vs  also.  Diddest  thou  not  assure  me,  without  all  doubt,  that 
thou  wouldest  bring  mee  in,  Penry,  Newman,  Waldegrave,  presse,  letters, 
and  all,  before  Saint  Andrewes  day  last.  And  now  thou  seest  we  are 
as  farre  to  seeke  for  them,  as  euer  we  were.'  From  this  it  is  obvious 
that  Munday  was  still  engaged  as  a  pursuivant,  and  was  one  of  the 
chief  police  agents  set  on  to  Martin's  track. 

As  it  happens,  we  possess  a  little  picture  of  Munday  in  the  exercise 
of  his  profession.  On  December  6,  1588,  one  Giles  Wiggington,  who 
was  suspected  to  have  had  a  finger  in  the  Marprelate  pie,  was  summoned 
to  Lambeth  to  answer  for  himself.  The  'archbishop's  pursuivant'  who 
'  apprehended  him  at  his  lodgings,  while  he  was  in  bed,'  was  none  other 
than  our  hero.  They  took  a  boat  to  Lambeth  and  on  the  way  Munday, 
under  pretence  of  desiring  to  be  instructed,  induced  his  prisoner  to 
speak  unguardedly  of  his  opinions,  and  of  what  he  knew  concerning 
Martin,  all  of  which  was  of  course  carefully  reported  to  the  archbishop 
when  they  reached  Lambeth,  although  a  strict  promise  of  secrecy  had 
been  given  to  the  simple-minded  puritan  minister3. 

1  McKerrow's  Nashe,  in,  p.  374, 1.  22.  2  Thompson,  Puritans  and  the  Stage,  p.  200. 

3  For  Wiggington's  account  of  this  episode  see  a  volume  of  manuscripts  entitled  A 
Second  Part  of  a  Register,  pp.  843 — 849  (Dr  Williams'  Library). 


JOHN    DOVER    WILSON  489 

Since  Munday  has  thus  been  proved  beyond  all  possibility  of  doubt 
to  have  been  engaged  in  tracking  the  Marprelate  press  in  its  movements 
across  the  country,  he  may  I  think  with  every  show  of  probability  be 
supposed  to  have  also  taken  part  in  the  production  of  the  anti-Martinist 
tracts.  It  would  be  strange  indeed  if  a  man  of  his  literary  reputation 
and  ability  had  not  written  something  upon  a  matter  which  must  then 
have  occupied  so  much  of  his  thoughts,  especially  as  the  bishops  were 
at  this  time  ready  to  encourage,  and  probably  to  reward,  those  who 
took  up  the  pen  against  their  formidable  antagonist.  Munday,  we  may 
be  almost  certain,  was  one  of  the  little  group  of  anti-Martinist  writers, 
and  the  only  difficulty  is  to  point  to  the  pamphlets  that  came  from  his 
pen.  In  this  Martin  himself  gives  us  a  clue,  somewhat  vague  it  is 
true,  but  worth  stating  for  all  that.  On  page  25  of  the  Protestation 
the  following  sentence  occurs,  '  then  among  al  the  rimers  and  stage 
plaiers,  which  my  LI  of  the  cleargy  had  suborded  against  me,  I 
remember  Mar-Martin,  John  a  Cant,  his  hobbie-horse,  was  to  his 
reproche,  newly  put  out  of  the  morris,  take  it  how  he  will ;  with  a  flat 
discharge  for  euer  shaking  his  shins  about  a  maypole  againe  while  he 
liued.'  Martin  is  speaking  of  his  tract  More  Worke  for  the  Cooper, 
which  had  just  been  captured  with  the  printers  and  press,  and  is 
drawing  upon  his  memory  for  its  various  points  and  sallies.  It  is  clear 
from  his  words  that  as  a  retort  to  the  anti-Martinist  plays  he  had 
written  what  he  would  perhaps  have  entitled  'a  pageant  of  petty 
popes,'  and  that  Mar-Martin  had  figured  in  this  as  giving  some  per- 
formance at  which  he  was  hissed  off  the  stage.  The  word  '  newly '  is 
curious  and  cannot  in  this  connection  mean  '  recently,'  since  Martin 
is  not  referring  to  any  actual  occurrence.  We  must  therefore,  I  think, 
give  it  its  other  meaning  of 'again,'  or  'anew,'  and  suppose  that  Martin 
is  hinting  at  some  occasion  in  which  Mar-Martin  had  really  been  dis- 
graced upon  the  boards  of  a  theatre.  Such  an  incident  would  be  the 
very  thing  that  Martin  would  pounce  upon  and  turn  to  his  own  ends. 
I  suggest,  therefore,  that  the  incident  in  question  is  that  referred  to  in 
A  True  Reporte  and  that  Martin  identified  Mar-Martin  with  Anthony 
Munday.  The  epithet  'John  a  Cant,  his  hobbie-horse,'  which  is 
obviously  suited  to  the  archbishop's  pursuivant,  lends  some  additional 
support  to  the  theojy1. 

Assuming  then  the  identification  to  have  been  intended  and  to 
have  been  correct,  what  did  Munday  write  in  support  of  the  bishops 
against  Martin  ?  There  are  of  course  the  rhymes  which  appeared  in 

1  Martin  had  already,  it  will  be  remembered,  referred  to  Munday's  treachery  against  the 
Papists.     It  is  not  impossible  therefore  that  he  had  read  A  True  Reporte. 


490       Anthony  Munday,   Pamphleteer  and  Pursuivant 

the  spring  of  1589  under  the  title  of  Mar-Martine,  but  I  fancy  that 
Martin's  reference  to  the  morris  and  the  maypole  point  to  the  fact  that 
'  Mar- Martin '  had  been  also  engaged  in  the  anti-Martinist  dramatic 
work  which  made  its  appearance  on  the  London  stage  in  the  summer  of 
1589.  The  author  of  Martins  Months  minde  tells  us  that  Martin  had 
been  '  made  a  may  game  upon  the  stage,'  and  gives  the  Theater  as  the 
place  of  performance1.  Martin's  words  would  lead  us  to  conjecture  that 
Munday  either  wrote  this  piece  or  took  a  prominent  part  in  it  as  an 
actor.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  also  that  Munday  had  a  hand  in 
the  prose  anti-Martinist  tracts  that  followed  the  dramatic  attack. 
Mr  McKerrow  has  made  certain  discoveries,  which  we  hope  to  see  set 
out  in  the  fifth  volume  of  his  magnificent  edition  of  Nashe,  that  make 
it  highly  improbable  that  Munday  any  more  than  Nashe  could  have 
been  responsible  for  the  tracts  that  passed  under  the  name  of  Pasquil. 
Nashe  certainly  took  some  part  in  the  controversy,  for  we  have  his  own 
word  for  it.  Perhaps  he  merely  contributed  to  the  dramatic  replies, 
perhaps  he  was  the  author  of  the  amusing  Martins  Months  minde. 
This  would  leave  by  process  of  exhaustion  An  Almond  for  a  Parrat  for 
Munday,  the  very  tract,  be  it  noticed,  which  gives  a  resentful  reply  to 
Martin's  reference  to  him  as  Judas.  None  of  the  other  pamphlets 
show  such  a  remarkable  knowledge  of  the  Marprelate  business,  and 
moreover  the  kind  of  knowledge  it  displays  is  just  that  which  a  pur- 
suivant engaged  in  detective  work  would  be  likely  to  have  gleaned. 
But  what  converts  a  possibility  into  a  strong  probability  is  the  fact 
that  the  author  of  An  Almond  once  distinctly  speaks  of  himself  as 
Mar-Martine :  '  I  giue  thee  but  a  bravado  now,  to  let  thee  knowe  I  am 
thine  enemie ;  but  the  next  time  you  see  Mar-Martine  in  armes  bidde 
your  sonnes  and  your  familie  prouide  them  to  God-warde,  for  I  am 
eagerly  bent  to  reuenge,  &  not  one  of  them  shall  escape,  no,  not  T.  C. 
himselfe  as  full  as  he  is  of  his  myracles2.'  This  passage  should  be 
sufficient  to  convince  anyone  that  Mar-Martine  and  An  Almond  are 
by  the  same  hand,  and  it  is  hoped  that  the  foregoing  argument  will  be 
held  sufficient  to  show  that  the  hand  in  question  was  that  of  Anthony 
Munday.  It  only  remains  now  to  identify  the  personality  of  Pasquill 
and  we  shall  be  in  a  fair  way  towards  clearing  up  the  most  teasing  and 
obscure  section  of  a  teasing  and  obscure  subject,  the  authorship  of  the 
anti-Martinist  tracts  in  the  Marprelate  controversy. 

JOHN  DOVER  WILSON. 
CAMBRIDGE. 

1  Sig.  E  3.  -  McKerrow,  Nashe,  p.  350,  11.  6—10. 


AN   ANGLO-FEENCH   LIFE   OF   SAINT   PAUL 
THE   HERMIT. 

IN  one  of  his  opening  lectures  at  the  College  de  France,  the  late 
Gaston  Paris1  classified  the  extra-national  sources  from  which  medieval 
French  literature  derived  inspiration  under  four  heads:  classical 
antiquity,  Christian  legend,  Celtic  tradition  and  Indian  stories,  and 
showed  how  each  class  had  enjoyed  its  period  of  popularity.  For  the 
last  class  he  pointed  out  that  a  story,  originating  in  India  and  under 
Buddhist  influence,  may  be  traced  through  Persian,  Syrian,  Arabic, 
Hebrew  and  Latin  before  arriving  at  French  and  that  the  reason  for 
the  popularity  of  these  stories  lay  in  the  excellence  of  their  moral 
teaching.  In  an  excellent  paper  on  The  Hermit  and  the  Saint, 
Mr  Gordon  Hall  Gerould2  shows  the  difficulty  of  tracing  these  Oriental 
stories  but  adds :  '  In  cases  where  the  story  was  adopted  by  the 
Christian  Church  at  an  early  date  for  the  moral  or  religious  instruction 
of  its  adherents,  there  is  perhaps  less  difficulty  than  elsewhere  in 
believing  that  it  was  actually  transplanted  from  the  East,  since  the 
lives  of  the  hermits  of  the  desert,  those  reservoirs  of  Christian  example, 
were  strongly  tinged  by  Oriental  thought.  This  latter  kind  of  nar- 
rative/ that  of  The  Hermit  and  the  Saint,  '  is  well  illustrated  by  the  tale 
of  the  hermit  who,  after  years  of  austere  living,  discovers  that  another 
man,  though  surrounded  by  wealth  and  clothed  with  temporal  authority, 
has  become  his  equal  or  superior  in  righteousness.  The  discomfiture 
of  the  good  man  when  he  learns  that  the  essential  character  of  holiness 
lies  rather  in  humility  and  simplicity  of  heart  than  in  outward  show  of 
piety  gives  the  story  point.  Though  obscured  in  some  of  the  versions, 
it  bears  evidence  that  asceticism,  even  when  it  fell  upon  degenerate 

1  Dec.  1874.     Reprinted  in  La  poesie  du  moy en-age,  2e  serie,  p.  75  seq. 

2  Publications   of   the   Modern   Language   Association   of   America,    Vol.    xx,    No.   3, 
p.    529  seq. 


492  Saint  Paul  the  Hermit 

days,  sometimes  remembered  the  meaning  of  true  piety.  The  narrative 
thus  furnishes  a  refreshing  contrast  to  the  multitude  of  tales  in  which 
morbid  laceration  of  spirit  and  flesh  are  commended  at  the  expense  of 
more  useful  virtues.' 

No  less  than  five  of  this  kind  of  story  are  to  be  found  in  the  Vitas 
Patrum  attached  to  the  lives  of  as  many  hermit  saints  of  the  desert : 

(1)  Paul  the  Hermit,  a  version  of  which  is  the  subject  of  this  paper.; 

(2)  St  Macarius,  introduced  by  William  of  Waddington  into  his  Manuel 
des  Pechiez  and  published  with  Robert  of  Brunne's  Handlyng  Synne 
(E.  E.  T.  S.,  119) ;  (3)  St  Paphnutius,  an  Anglo-French  version  of  which, 
edited  by  the  writer  of  this  paper,  is  to  appear  in  Romania  for  July, 
1909;   (4)  Pyoterius,  and  (5)  Eucharius,  which  do  not  seem  to  have 
found   their   way   into   French   literature1.      The   story   of  Paul   and 
Anthony  does  not  seem  to  have  the  same  point  as  the  other  stories 
since   the   piety   of  the   hermits   is   of  the   same   kind.      It   is   only 
St   Anthony   who   would   appear   to   have   grown   proud   of  his   own 
goodness  (see  below,  1.  152)  and  to  have  been  sent  to  find  his  superior 
in  piety. 

There  was  apparently  in  the  Early  Church  some  controversy  about 
the  question  who  was  the  first  hermit,  some  declaring  for  Paul  and 
some  for  Anthony;  the  legend  as  it  stands  in  Migne  (xxm,  col.  17  ff.) 
declares :  Paulum. .  .principem  istius  rei  non  nominis  and  states  that  the 
story  of  Anthony  was  much  more  widely  known.  In  the  Legenda  aurea, 
Jacobus  a  Voragine  follows  Saint  Jerome  (Paulas  primus  eremita  ut 
testatur  Hieronymus  qui  ejus  vitam  conscripsit)  who  is  in  turn  followed 
by  the  French  prose  version  in  the  British  Museum  MS.  17275  Add. 
(fo.  204  vo.  b)  while  the  account  in  Migne  is  closely  followed  in  the 
three  following  MSS. :  (1)  Paris,  Bibl.  nat.  412  (fo.  197  vo.  b),  (2) 
Cheltenham,  Phillipps  3660  (fo.  212  vo.  b),  (3)  British  Mus.  Royal  20 
D.  vi  (fo.  196  vo.  a)2. 


1  A  somewhat  analogous  case  is  furnished  by  the  life  of  Saint  Mary  of  Egypt  whose 
story  was  apparently  interwoven  with  that  of  Saint  Zozimas  to  prove  that  the  life-long 
asceticism  of  a  monk  could  be  surpassed  by  the  abnegation  of  a  woman. 

2  How  closely  these  two  groups  are  followed  by  the  French  prose  may  be  seen  by 
comparing  them  with  the  original  Latin: 

Legenda  aurea.  Brit.  Mus.  17275  Add. 

Paulus    primus   eremita,   ut   testatur  Saint  Pol   le  premier  hermite  alsi  com 

Hieronymous,  qui  ejus  vitam  conscripsit,  tesmoingne  Saint  Jheroisme  qui  escrit  sa  vie, 
fervente  Decii  persecutione  eremum  vas-  s'en  ala  en  .1.  desert  gaste,  a  eel  temps  que 
tissimum  addiit  ibique  in  quadam  spelunca  Decius  Cesar  emperere  de  Romme  vivoit  et 
Ix  annis  hominibus  incognitus  permansit.  destruisoit  les  crestiens.  Illuec  demora  S.  Pol 

Ix  ans  que  il  ue  vit  home  ne  fame. 


A.    T.    BAKER  493 

* 

The  rimed  version  here  given  has,  however,  no  controversial  intention; 
it  is  purely  didactic  and  belongs  to  the  vast  mass  of  Anglo-French  moral 
literature  of  the  thirteenth  and  early  fourteenth  centuries  (cf.  Schofield, 
English  Literature  from  the  Conquest  to  Chaucer,  ch.  II  and  in,  and 
appendices).  Fortunately  its  author  names  himself  at  the  end  of  his 
poem  for  the  reason  that  has  so  often  preserved  a  work  from  anonymity, 
that  he  might  obtain  credit  in  another  life.  He  is  doubtless  that 
'  Boioun '  whose  Contes  moralises  have  been  accorded  an  edition  such 
as  they  deserve  in  the  publications  of  the  Societe  des  anciens  textes 
fran9ais.  Mention  is  there  (p.  xlvii)  made  of  nine  verse  lives  of  holy 
women  ascribed  to  him,  contained  in  MS.  Cotton,  Dornitian  XI.  The 
following  life  of  Paul  the  Hermit  together  with  that  of  St  Panuce  bring 
the  total  up  to  eleven.  In  a  previous  note  in  this  review  (in,  p.  374) 
I  described  briefly  the  MS.  (Welbeck  ICI)  which  contains  these  lives 
and  in  my  article  in  the  Romania  a  full  account  has  been  given ;  besides 
the  two  already  mentioned,  this  MS.  has  a  life  of  St  Elisabeth  of 
Hungary  (also  in  the  Cotton  MS.)  due  also  to  the  pen  of  Bozon  as  the 
learned  editor  of  the  edition  of  the  Contes  prefers  to  call  him.  Our 
author  had  doubtless  access  to  a  MS.  of  the  works  of  Saint  Jerome 
(referred  to  in  the  notes  as  H.)  for  he  mentions  him  in  line  285  and 
follows  him  fairly  closely.  In  some  cases  however  he  would  seem  to 
prefer  the  shorter  rendering  of  the  Legenda  aurea  (quoted  in  the  notes 
as.  L.a.).  The  former  on  account  of  his  very  digressions  would  be 
dear  to  the  heart  of  Bozon. 

As  to  the  text  here  presented,  it  seems  fitting  to  point  out  that 
faulty  lines  have  been  emended  as  far  as  possible.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  Anglo-French  authors  meant  to  write  correct  lines  and  also  that 
they  were  conscious  of  their  imperfections;  an  insular  pronunciation 
had,  however,  developed  and  it  is  to  this  that  must  be  ascribed  the 
majority  of  the  divergences  from  the  French  of  the  continent.  Further 

Migne,  xxui,  col.  17.  Brit.  Mus.  Koyal  20  D.  vi. 

Inter  multos  ssepe  dubitatum  est  a  quo  Assez  de  genz  ount  sovent  doute  qui  fu  li 

potissimum  monachorum  eremus  habitari  premiers  hermites  qui  premierement  habita 

ccepta  sit.     Quidam  enim  altius  repeten-  es  forez.    Car  li  aucun  dient  que  Seinz  Helyes 

tes,   a   beato    Elia   et    Joanne    sumpsere  e  Seinz  Johans  furent  chief  e  commencement 

principium ;  quorum  et  Elias  plus  nobis  de  tel  maniere  d'ordre.     De  cez  ij  nos  semble 

videtur  fuisse,   quam  monachus  :   et  Jo-  il  que  Seinz  Helyes  f u  plus  que  hermites  e 

hannes   ante   prophetafe    ccepisse    quam  Seinz  Johanz  profetiza  encois  qu'il  fust  nez. 

natus  sit.    Alii  autem,  in  quamopinionem  Li  autre  tesmoignent  que  Seinz  Antiones  fu 

vulgus  omneconsentit,  asserunt  Antonium  chief  de  tel  maniere  d'ordre  et  a  eels  se  con- 

hujus  propositi  caput,  quod  exparte  verum  sent  toz  li  peuples   e  ce  est  voirs   en   une 

est :  non  enim  tarn  ipse  ante  omnes  fuit,  maniere.     II  ne  fu  pas  del   tot  li  premiers 

quam  ab  eo  omnium  incitata  sunt  studia.  qui  entra  es  deserz  mes  il  dona  premierement 

essample  au  monde.     (fp.  195  vo.  a.) 


494  Saint  Paul  the  Hermit 

f 

the  scribe  often  endeavoured  to  take  his  share  of  the  credit  by  render- 
ing a  verse  more  comprehensible  to  the  frequent  detriment  of  the 
scansion1.  Cases  where  it  is  necessary  now  to  count  and  now  to  omit 
the  '  e  muet '  in  order  to  secure  the  correct  number  of  syllables  in 
a  line  have  not  been  pointed  out  in  the  notes. 


LA   VIE   DE   SEINT   PAUL   LE   HERMITE. 

Le  primer  hermite  ke  ay  trovee, 

Seint  Paul  le  hermite  est  nomee ; 

il  fut  en  tens  le  emperoiir 
4  Decius,  un  tourmentoiir, 

ki  tourmenta  les  cristiens, 

diversement,  diverses  genz. 

a  cele  houre  deus  juvenceus, 
8  deus  crestiens,  bons  e  le[e]us, 

furent  pris  e  aresounee, 

si  vuelent  guerpir  (la)  crestientee. 

nay,  firent  il,  avaunt  la  mort 
12  nus  ellisoun  ke  fere  teu  tort. 

fors  pristrent  1'un  e  1'unt  lye 

a  une  ostache  e  flaelee, 

taunt  ke  il  fut  ensaunglauntee, 
1 6  pus  soun  cors  de  mel  unt  frot£e. 

le  solail  ardaunt  soun  core  ard; 

les  mousches  le  assailent  de  tote  part, 

quele  peyne  il  souffry  lore, 
20  nul  ne  le  sout  for  [le]  soun  core. 

10  MS.  voleyent ;  10  crestientee  is  generally  of  4  sylls.  11  MS.  fount. 

.  1 — 4  The  beginning  seems  rather  to  be  suggested  by  the  Legenda  aurea  (Ed. 
Graesse,  1850)  fervente  Decii  persecutione,  while  the  order  is  rather  that  of  Hierony- 
mous  (Migne,  xxm,  col.  19).  5 — 24  H.  Perseverantem  in  Jide  martyrem,  et  inter 
eculeos  laminasque  victorem  jussit  melle  perungi,  et  sub  ardentissimo  sole,  religatis 
manibus  post  tergum,  reponi,  scilicet  ut  muscarum  aculeis  cederet,  qui  ignitas  sartagines 
ante  superasset. 

1  Of  the  various  verse  versions  of  the  life  of  Saint  Mary  of  Egypt,  no  less  than  six  com- 
plete MSS.  are  extant  of  one  of  them  and  in  each  case  the  scribe  has  added  an  ending  of 
his  own. 


A.    T.    BAKER  495 

pur  tote  la  peyne  ne  poyent  mye, 

fere  le  graunter  renerie ; 

ben  vesquit  [il]  e  ben  morut, 
24  hore  ly  turne  tut  a  dedut. 

soun  cunpaynoun  ausi  le[e]us, 

ausi  estable  mes  plus  beus, 

de  assez  plus  ad  il  souffert, 
28  diverses  paynes  saunz  desert, 

e  par  arsoun  e  par  [grant]  freyt; 

mes  par  tut  [ceo]  mestre  esteit. 

kaunt  Sathan  perd(y)  par  la  sa  preye, 
32  yl  le  assailli  par  autre  veye. 

en  un  verger  delicious, 

il  le  unt  amenee  par  desouz 

les  arbres  fuyllez  e  floriez, 
36  hou  oyseus  fount  lur  melodiez, 

hou  se  espanit  le  douz  odour 

de  rose  e  Hz  e  autre  flour, 

hou  les  riveres  encountreyent 
4o  ke  le  verger  envirouneyent, 

partut  enclos  de  beu  treleys, 

e  ben  frettee  de  beu  foylliz, 

la  feseyent  fere  un  lit, 
44  ben  covert  de  [un]  beu  samyt; 

e  unt  cogee  ly  juvenceous, 

en  [i]ceo  lyt  ke  fu  si  beus, 

[e]  meynz  e  piz  ly  unt  lyee 
48  de  laz  de  seye  ben  afforcee ; 

e  pus  s'en  sount  [tres]touz  allee, 

e  meyntenant  [s'est]  revee"[e], 

femme  en  beaute  graciouse, 
52  mes  en  malice  venimouse; 

31  the  line  might  perhaps  be  better  emended  by  omitting  par.  50  The  verb 
reveer  is  apparently  rare ;  Godefroy  only  quotes  one  example  of  the  reflexive  use  and 
that  quite  late  (s.v.  revoiier). 

21  The  death  of  this  first  martyr  is  only  suggested  in  the  cederet  and  is  not 
mentioned  in  L.a.  33  H.  in  amcenissimos  hortulos.  38  H.  inter  lilia  candentia 
et  rubentes  rosas,  cum  leni  juxta  murmnre  aquarum  serperet  rivus.  44  H.  super 

exstructum  plumis  lectum.  48  H.  blandis  sertorum  nexibus.  50  H.  Quo  cum, 
recedentibus  cunctis,  meretrix  speciosa  venisset.  The  picture  is  touched  up  to  suit 
his  age. 


496  Saint  Paul  the  Hermit 

la  bele  mauveyse  le  beysa, 

e  vileynement  le  manya, 

des  braz  souvent  le  embraza 
56  e  mout  vilement  le  tempta. 

yl  senty  sa  char  eschaufer, 

e  il  ne  se  pout  deliverer; 

sa  launge  demeyne  ad  coupee 
60  de  ses  denz  e  [1'ad]  escoupee 

en  my  la  face  [la]  vileyne, 

ki  [la]  ly  feseit  taunt  de  peyne ; 

ele  vit  sa  bountee  taunt  parfite, 
64  fors  s'en  ala  [tote]  desconfite ; 

e  par  dolour  de  la  [soue]  launge, 

sa  temptaciun  devynt  estraunge; 

en  cele  bataille  demora  mestre, 
68  pur  joye  durable  hou  voleyt  estre ; 

par  mort  passa  a  cele  vie, 

hou  tout  est  joye  e  melodic. 

Seint  Pol  ke  tut  veu  aveit 
72  ke  de  ceus  amiz  dounk  esteyt, 

tere  e  mesoun  e  heritage, 

tut  guerpit  il  e  soun  lingnage ; 

e  [il]  se  myt  en  un  desert, 
76  hou  mil  homme  [ne]  se  aherd; 

la  se  quisit  hou  polit  meyndre, 

hou  autre  ne  quidout  ke  put  ateyndre : 

en  une  roche  prive[e]ment, 
80  ke  tut  enviroune  espessement 

bronce,  espines  mout  poynaunz ; 

e  la  demora  sessaunte  aunz; 

unk(e)  de  lu  remuher  ne  vout, 

56  MS.  forment.  70  MS.  hou  joye  est  touz  jours  e  melodie.  72  MS.  cesse. 

57  H.  Quern  tormenta  non  vicerant,  superabat  voluptas.         59  H.  Tandem  ccditus 
inspiratus,  prcecisam  mordicus  linguam  in  osculantis  se  faciem  exspuit.  71    Both 
Bozon  and  L.a.  omit  Paul's  retreat  to  a  lonely  farm  and  the  dreaded  treachery  of 
the  brother-in-law,  who  desired  Paul's  property  (sororis  maritus  caepit  prodere  velle 
quern  celare  debuerat).     L.a.  has  briefly  Horum  et  altorum  pcenis  sanctus  Paulus 
territus  eremum  petiit.          79  Hieronymous'  long  digression  on  the  nature  of  the 
cave — a  disused  coiner's  den  of  the  time  of  Cleopatra  and  Antony — is  omitted. 
82    Cf.  L.a.  passage  quoted  p.  492,  note.      H.   cum  jam  centum  tredecim  annos 
beatus  Paulus  vitam  coelestem  ageret  in  terris. 


A.    T.    BAKER  497 

84  ne  unkes  homme  de  ly  ne  sout: 

taunt  ke  advynt  ke  Seint  Antoynne 

ke  esteit  un  tres  noble  moynne, 

resceiit  en  avisi'un, 
88  ke  il  alat  ver  un  teus  houn. 

Seynt  Antoynne  se  myt  avaunt, 

ne  sout  queu  part  [ne]  taunt  ne  kaunt ; 

mes  grace  le  amena  por  son  desert, 
92  le  dreyt  chemyn  a  ceu  desert. 

kaunt  est  entre  en  la  guastine, 

se'  meit  la  undreit  hou  Deu  destyne. 

une  beste  [par]  trop  hidouse, 
96  1'ad  encountre  si  merveillouse, 

ke  homme  e  cheval  sount  enclos 

en  la  figure  de  un  soul  cors ; 

pur  cele  vue  sauvagine, 
ioo  yl  fit  la  croiz  en  sa  poitrine; 

avaunt  se  myt  [mout]  baudement, 

en  Deu  se  affia  (mout)  leiiment ; 

pus  encountra  une  autre  beste, 
104  ke  par  de  vaunt  out  meyns  e  teste 

en  fourme  de  homme  apparisaunt, 

mes  par  derere  out  semblaunt 

de  chevre,  en  quyse,  en  nage,  en  pee; 
108  assez  esteit  il  deguysee. 

yl  tendy  Antoyne  1'une  mayn, 

de  frut  de  paume  tote  pleyn, 

de  1'autre  meyn  [il]  ly  mercheyt, 
112  cele  part  hou  Termite  maneyt. 

ky  estes  vos  ?   dit  [Seint]  Antoyne. 

yl  respondi  au  noble  moynne : 

jeo  su,  dit  il,  un  deu  du  boys, 
116  nut  e  jour  par  icy  [jeo]  voys, 

86  MS.  fut.  91  MS.  sa.  107  quyse  does  iiot  seem  to  be  found  in  the 
dictionaries ;  it  would  seem  to  be  cuisse ;  nage  ( =/me). 

87  H.  hcec  in  mentem  ejus  cogitatio  incidit,  nullum  ultra  se  perfectum  monachum 
in  eremo  consedisse.     L.a.   Eo  tempore  cum   Antonius  primum  se  inter  monachos 
eremicolam  cogitaret.          97  H.  and  L.a.  hominem  equo  mixtum.  104  H.  hand 
grandem  homunculum  videt,  aduncis  naribus,  fronte  cornibus  asperata,  cujus  extrema 
pars  corporis  in  caprarum  pedes  desinebat.         110  H.  palmarum  fructus . . .offerebat. 

M.  L.  R.  IV.  32 


498  Saint  Paul  the  Hermit 

jeo  su  mortel,  de  mort  mourray, 

le  comun  Deu  priez  pur  mey. 

pus  [il]  encountra  un  grant  lou, 
120  unke  mes  ne  out  un  tel(e)  v[e]u ; 

le  lou  fit  seingne  de  la  couhe, 

ke  ly  seint  homme  fu  ben  venue; 

touz  jours  [il]  ala  de  vaunt  ly. 
124  e  seint  Antoyne  le  suhi ; 

pensa  de  Deu  ke  le  out  cher, 

(le)  lou  envea  pur  1'amener. 

kaunt  aprocherent  a  tel  lu 
128  ke  Seint  Pol  [i]  out  ell[e]u, 

de  nule  part  ne  ad  trovee, 

veye  ne  sent  ke  fut  usee. 

le  lou  le  ameyne  par  my  la  bronce, 
132  hou  il  passa  par  mainte  rounce; 

a  graunt  peyne  illuke  vint, 

ne  hoseit  entrer,  dehors  se  tynt. 

le  lou  a  Seint  Pol  i  entra, 
136  e  Antoyne  dehors  demora; 

par  le  lou  apparcelit  tot, 

ke  estraungerie  ly  fu  desc[l]ost 

tot  meyntement  soun  bus  [il]  clot 
140  e  clos  se  tynt,  ne  dit  nul  mot. 

Seint  Antoyne  [resta]  par  de  hors; 

a  tere  chey  e  dit  lors: 

beu  douz  pere,  taunt  [seyez]  benyngne, 
144  mes  ke  jeo  ne  seye  pas  digne 

de  veer  la  face  aungeline, 

sa  graunt  bountee  ver  mey  encline; 

138  MS.  descost :  this  would  seem  to  be  an  incorrect  past  participle,  cf.  1.  97. 

117  H.  Mortalis  ego  sum  et  unus  ex  accolis  eremi,  quos  vario  delusa  error  e 
Gentilitas,  Faunos,  Satyrosque  vocans  colit.  Legatione  fungor  gregis  met.  Precamur 
ut  pro  nobis  communem  Dominum  depreceris....  121  L.a.  has  simply:  Postremo 
obviavit  ei  lupus,  qui  eum  ad  cellam  sancti  Pauli  perdujrit.  H.  remarks  that  the 
wolf  entered  the  cave  to  quench  its  thirst  and  that  Antony  followed  it.  Neither 
author  mentions  the  sign  of  the  tail  but  it  is  a  touch  worthy  of  a  writer  who  used 
beast  stories  to  such  an  extent  in  his  Contes  (v.  op.  cit.  p.  64  ei  freq.  al.}. 
134 — 9  Both  H.  and  L.a.  state  that  St  Paul  barred  the  door :  Paulus  ostium  sera 
clausit.  H.  Paulus  ostium  quod  patebat  occludens  sera  obfinnavit.  145  H.  Scio 

me  non  mereri  conspectum  tuum. 


A.    T.    BAKER  499 

ne  souffrez  pas  ke  jeo  ne  eye 
148  mon  desir  e  ke  [jeo]  vos  veye : 
avaunt  ke  venise  a  vos  cy, 
Deu  me  moustra  la  sue  mercy 
en  [un]  aperfc  avisioun, 
152  e  vostre  vie  e  vostre  noun, 
ky  estes  vos  ke  la  parlez  ? 
ja  sessaunte  aunz  en  sount  passez 
ke  jeo  oyse  nul  parler, 
156  si  aunge(l)  ne  fat  hou  seint  du  ciel. 
jeo  su  Antoyne,  ceo  dit  il, 
un  cheytif  moynne  ke  en  peril, 
su  venu  cy  pur  visiter, 
1 60  vostre  persone  ke  Deu  ad  cher. 
Seint  Pol  dounke  li  leit  entrer, 
se  entrebeysent  de  douz  quer: 
lors  se  assistrent  e  parlerent 
164  de  douce  matere  ke  la  tresterent. 
[e]  Seint  Pol  pus  li  demaunda 
de  gent  de  secle  coment  va, 
sount  il  uncore  demorez 
1 68  hou  li  secle  est  ja  passez  ? 
e  il  respond(i)  la  crestiente 
commence  a  crestre,  beneyt  se  De(e). 
a  ceo  ke  sistrent  en  parlaunt, 
172  vint  un  oysel  ke  fu  ben  graunt, 
ki  port[eit]  un  payn  tut  enter, 

155 — 6  This  instance  of  assonance  would  not  be  as  striking  a  fault  as  it  would 
be  on  the  continent ;  the  value  of  r  cannot  have  been  very  distinct ;  cf.  the  rimes, 
97,  8.  170  The  form  se  =  (seif)  may  perhaps  be  kept  in  a  formula  like  this,  but 
the  reduction  ei  >  e  is  rare  in  Agn.  though  some  instances  are  found  in  Domesday 
Book. 

157  H.  Quo  (ingressu)  aperto  dum  in  mutuos  miscentur  amplexus,  propriis  se 
salutare  nominibus.  165  Narra  mihi,  quceso,  quomodo  se  habeat  humanum  genus. 
A  similar  human  touch  is  to  be  found  in  a  life  of  St  Mary  of  Egypt : 

mult  li  comence  a  demander, 

Die,  quomodo  nunc  aqitur  cum  gente      ^lt  so  vent  a  enterver 
Christiana  ?  quid  lieges  agunt  'I  quomodo      des  ™\  des  ™ntesde  le  tere, 

qubernatur  Ecdesia  ?  se  *l  ont  Pais  ou  llj  °nf  V™rre' 

e  des  pastours  qui  le  loi  tienent 
A.A.S.S.  I  April,  p.  79.  confaitement  il  se  contienent. 

MS.  Paris,  B.N.  23112. 

32—2 


500  Saint  Paul  the  Hermit 

entre  eus  deus  le  lut  cheer. 

lors  dit  Seint  Pol  a  Seint  Antoyne ; 
176  checoun  jour  a  houre  de  noune, 

Deu  me  ad  done  sessaunte  aunz 

par  un  oysel  ma  soystenance, 

un  demy  payn  [a]  checun  jour, 
1 80  mes  pur  nos  huy  [a]  iceo  jour 

nous  est  venu  un  payn  enteer 

par  nostre  courteys  despenseer. 

hore  en  pernez,  dit  Seint  Pol; 
184  nay,  dit  1'autre,  jeo  serrey  fol, 

si  jeo  meyse  avaunt  la  meyn 

avaunt  ke  husez  pris  du  payn. 

[mes]  pus  apres  un  long  atent, 
188  [y]  mistrent  meyn  par  un  assent, 

1'un  e  1'autre  a  iceo  payn, 

si  ke  nul  ne  fut  le  dereyn. 

kaunt  unt  mange,  del  ewe  burent, 
192  autre  hanap  ke  meyns  ne  hurent; 

e  mercient  lur  creatur, 

ke  lur  fit  [un]  si  graunt  honour. 

dounk  dit  Pol  jeo  ay  (mout)  desiree, 
196  de  cheytif  cors  estre  allegee ; 

ke  jeo  puse  par  taunt  venir, 

a  moun  seygnour  ke  taunt  desir; 

hor(e)  say  jeo  ben  ke  tens  aproche, 
200  ke  ly  alme  du  cors  se  alloche ; 

par  taunt  ke  estes  venu  icy, 

par  vos  serray  ensevely. 

e  Seint  Antoyne  respoundy 
204  ne  vuylle  Deu  ke  fut  issy. 

hou  vos  touz  jours  ci  demouray, 

e  de  vos  servir  prest  serray. 

177 — 8,  the  rime  would  seem  interesting  for  the  pronunciation.  200  I  know 
no  example  of  allochier  in  Old  Fr.  but  eslockier  is  very  common  in  senses  analogous 
to  this  :  perhaps  the  line  should  be  emended  s'esloche ;  Bozon  may  possibly  have 
written  asloche,  the  change  e  >  a  is  not  uncommon  in  Agn. 

184  ff.  H.  Hie  vero  quis  f ranger et  panem  oborta  contentio,  pene  diem  in  vesperum 
duxit.  Paulus  more  cogebat  hospitii,  Antonius  jure  refelLebat  cetatis.  Tandem  consilium 
fait,  ut  apprehenso  e  regione  pane,  dum  ad  se  quisque  nititur,  pars  sua  remaneret  in 
manibus.  192  Dehinc  paululum  aquos  infonteprono  ore  libaverunt. 


A.    T.    BAKER  501 

nay,  dit  1'autre,  mouz  de  genz 
208  serrount  apres  par  vostre  presens ; 

voirs  ne  devez  pas  desirer, 

taunt  soul  vous  raeesmes  sauver, 

mes  autry  salu  (de)  procurer, 
212  par  ensaumple  e  par  precher; 

coment  serrey(en)t  la  gent  sauvee, 

si  ne  fusent  ben  enfourmee : 

hore  alez  tot,  jeo  vous  [en]  pri, 
216  si  me  aportez  le  mauntel  (i)cy, 

ke  1'arceveske  Attanasy 

vous  ad  donee,  vostre  amy; 

si  tot  cum  vous  retournerez, 
220  prest  de  ensevelir  me  troverez. 

Seint  Antoyne  se  enmervuillout, 

coment  Seint  Pol  du  mauntel  sout; 

ver  mesoun  se  myt  bon  e  bel, 
2-4  ho  ly  reporta  le  mauntel. 

kaunt  une  journey  fu  de  lu 

hou  Seint  Pol  esteit,  [le]  soun  dru, 

regard  amount  au  firmament, 
228  e  veyt  mounter  ignelement, 

une  trebele  cumpaignie 

des  aungeles,  en  ky  bayllie, 

1'alme  Seint  Pol  fu  bayllee 
232  ke  passa  (le)  solayl(le)  en  clartee. 

lors  Antoyne  se  hasta  mout, 

pur  saver  [moun]  si  Pol  mort  fut, 

trova  le  cors  ho  joyntes  meyns, 

207  line  too  short;  208  line  too  long.  I  read  'many  people  will  be  (saved)  by 
your  being  in  the  world'  (not  hidden  in  a  cave).  217  A  blank  had  been  leit 
by  the  scribe  before  veske,  the  reference  is  to  the  gift  of  a  pallium  by  Athanasius  to 
Anthony.  220  Read  troverez  as  two  sylls.  234  The  expression  saver  moun 
occurs  in  the  same  author's  Vie  de  Saint  Panuce :  cf.  Moliere,  (7a  mon  (Bourg.  gent. 
m.  iii). 

209  H.  Non  debes,  •  inquit  (Paulus),  qucerere  quce  tua  sunt  sed  quce  aliena. 
217  H.  Quamobrem,  quceso,  perge,  nisi  molestum  est:  et  pallium  quod  tibi  Athanasius 
episcopus  dedit,  ad  obvolvendum  corpusculum  meum,  defer.  221  H.  Stupefactus  ergo 
Antonius,  quod  de  Athanasio  et  pallio  ejus  audierat.  225  H.  Cumquejam  dies  alia 
illuxisset,  et  trium  horarum  spatio  iter  remaneret,  vidit  inter  angelorum  catervas, 
inter  prophetarum  et  apostolorum  c/ioros,  niveo  candore  Paulum  fulgentem  in  sublime 
conscendere. 


502  Saint  Paul  the  Hermit 

236  seaunt  a  genuz  par  dedeyns; 

(il)  quidout  ke  fut  en  oreysoun, 

par  seingne  de  graunt  devociun, 

meuz  apparut  [plus]  vif  que  mort, 
240  dount  il  rescetit  graunt  counfort ; 

pus  apres  kaunt  [il]  ad  v[e]u 

ke  le  corps  ne  se  est  m[e]u; 

il  sout  dont  ben  ke  il  fu  mort, 
244  lors  out  double  descounfort 

ke  il  ne  hut  parle  avaunt  ho  ly 

dount  il  poiit  ensevelir. 
248  si  dolent  fut  ne  sout  ke  dir. 

a  ceo  s'en  venent  deuz  lyouns, 

dount  prime  out  pour  ly  seint  houns, 

taunt  ke  vit  ke  [il]  se  cogerent 
252  aupres  du  cors  e  weymenterent 

la  mort  le  seint  en  lur  nature; 

(e)  pus  s'en  levent  e  (fount)  ouverture, 

de  la  pouhe  [fount]  en  la  tere; 
256  si  ben  cum  estovereit  fere, 

assez  loung  e  assez  parfount, 

e  pus  apres  cogez  s'en  sount 

devaunt  (Seint)  Antoyne  e  por  guerdon 
260  quer(er)ent  par  seingne  la  beneyson ; 

lors  Seint  Antoyne  a  Deu  dit: 

beu  douz  syre,  Jhesu  Crist, 

246  The  scribe  in  omitting  this  line  has  committed  the  error  known  as  homoiote- 
leuton ;  the  line  doubtless  ended  also  with  the  words  ho  ly  and  corresponded  to  the 
Latin  Cantristabatur  Antonius  quod  sarculum  quo  terram  foderet,  non  haberet. 
254  The  fount  of  this  line  belongs  to  the  line  following.  256  The  MS.  has 

escoverent  or  estoverent :  1  take  it  that  the  scribe  has  written  n  for  i  (one  bar  too 
many).  262  Line  of  only  7  sylls. 

239  H.  Ac  primum  et  ipse  vivere  eum  credens  pariter  orabat.  248  Another 

instance  where  a  wild  beast  helps  to  bury  a  saint  is  to  be  found  in  the  before- 
mentioned  life  of  Saint  Mary  of  Egypt.  Here  one  lion  digs  the  grave  in  which 
Mary  is  placed  by  Zozimas  and  the  lion.  250  H.  Et  illi  (sc.  leones)  quidem 

directo  cursu  ad  cadaver  beati  senis  substiterunt,  adulantibusque  ca.udis  circa  ejus  pedes 
accubuere:  fremitu  ingenti  rugientes,...eos  plangere,  quo  modo  poterant.  Deinde 
haud  procul  cceperunt  humum  pedibus  scalpere;  arenamque  certatim  eaerentes,  unius 
hominis  capacem  locum  foderunt.  Ac  statim  quasi  mercedem  pro  opere  posttdantes, 
cum  motu  aurium,  cervice  dejecta,  ad  Antonium  perrexerunt  manus  ejus  pedesque 
lingentes.  At  ille  animadvertit  benedictionem  eos  a  se  precari. 


A.    T.    BAKER  503 

saunz  ke  sen,  cheer  a  tere 
264  la  fuylle  de  arbre  ne  ne  pout  fere; 

vous  savez  ben  ke  jeo  oy  affere, 

de  eyde  pur  cety  metre  en  tere ; 

a  cestes  bestes  ke  me  unt  eydee, 
268  jeo  vous  pri  ke  seit  allouhee. 

les  lyouns  s'en  vount  peysiblement ; 

le  seint  du  seint  le  cors  i  prent, 

le  mit  en  tere  e  le  covery, 
272  e  sa  cote  prit  [il]  ver  ly ; 

autre  tresor  ne  [i]  trova 

for  la  cote  ke  Seint  Pol  usa; 

ne  hot  ne  pael  ne  poscenet, 
276  ne  toylle  ne  nape  ne  cotelet, 

ne  chaloun  ne  lyncel  (ne  poyns)  desure, 

pur  sessaunte  aunz  ke  fit  la  demure ; 

la  dure  roche  esteit  soun  lit, 
280  de  herbe  e  mouse  se  coverit; 

autre  payn  ja  mes  ne  gousta, 

fors  ceo  ke  1'oysel  aporta; 

dount  Seint  Antoyne  ren  ne  trova, 
284  fors  la  cote  ke  il  usa; 

de  cele  cote  Seint  Jerome  dit, 

ke  en  latin  sa  vie  descrit : 

meuz  vddrey,  dit  il,  en  atres 

263  The  emendation  seems  hazardous  since  the  MS.  has  fu :  saunz  ke  should  be 
followed  by  a  finite  verb,  but  the  author  may  have  mixed  the  two  constructions 
saunz  ke  sachez  and  saunz  vostre  sen.  275  The  word  here  given  might  possibly  be 
a  variant  of  poconet,  a  measure ;  but  since  all  the  other  words  are  names  of  textile 
goods,  1  am  inclined  to  take  as  poncelet :  a  stuff  which  might  have  been  woven  at  one 
of  the  many  French  towns  of  the  same  or  similar  names  (cf.  Arras)  and  named  after  it : 
or  since  poncel  =  pavot  (poppy)  it  might  be  a  name  given  to  a  stuff  from  the  colour 
of  the  dye  (cf.  cramoisi),  or  perhaps  the  word  is  poinconnet,  embroidered  work. 
277  chaloun :  Godefroy  gives  no  example  of  this  word  but  says  that  it  is  a 
stuff  formerly  manufactured  at  Chalons-sur-Marne.  poyns :  I  take  as  pane  in 
counterpane  formerly  counterpoint,  and  desure  in  the  sense  of  on  him,  to  cover  him, 
but  a  reading  de  Sure,  =  of  Syria  seems  possible.  287  I  take  en  atres  in  the 

sense  of  'belongings.' 

263 — 8.  H.  Domine,  sine  cujus  nutu  nee  folium  arboris  defluit,  nee  unus  passerum 
ad  terram  cadit,  da  Hits  (sc.  bestiis)  sicut  tu  scis.  274 — 8  The  author  has  allowed  his 
fancy  to  run  away  with  him :  mention  is  only  made  of  course  of  the  cote  =  tunica  in  H. 
285  H.  Obsecro,  guicunque  hcec  legis,  ut  Hieronymi  peccatoris  memineris  cui  si 
Dominus  optionem  daret,  multo  magis  eligeret  tunicam  Pauli  cum  meritis  ejus  quam 
regum  purpuras  cum  pcenis  suis. 


504  Saint  Paul  the  Hermit 

288  la  cote  Paul  ho  ses  benfez, 

ke  touz  les  reumes  ke  reys  tenent 

e  touz  les  tresors  ke  a  ceus  partenent: 

e  si  fut  ele  mout  estraunge, 
292  de  menuz  paumes  saunz  lange  hou  lange, 

mes  k'aunke  la  cote  valut  meyns, 

en  value  passa  ke  fut  dedeyns : 

mes  ceo  est  la  fin  e  la  soume, 
296  vie  de  aungel  out  eel  homne. 

e  jeo  pri  Deu  pur  sa  bounte"e 

ke  mercy  eit  de  humeyne  lyngn^e, 

de  frere  Boioun  ne  eit  pas  dedeyn, 
300  de  cele  vie  ke  est  loynteyn.     Amen. 

292  H.  (tunicam)  quam  in  sportarum  modum  de  palmce  foliis  ipsi  sibi  contexuerat. 

A.  T.  BAKER. 

SHEFFIELD. 


MISCELLANEOUS   NOTES. 

SOME  EARLY  MIDDLE- ENGLISH  SPELLINGS. 

THERE  are  two  remarkable  pieces  of  twelfth  century  English 
forming  the  respective  conclusions  of  two  manuscripts  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  Chronicle,  which  exhibit  extraordinary  phonetic  and  orthographic 
features.  These  are  most  of  them  to  be  paralleled  in  other  early  Middle 
English  documents,  but  the  passages  that  I  refer  to  present  such  a  chaos 
of  grammatical  forms  as  is  only  to  be  found  in  specimens  of  a  like 
character  with  the  Paternoster,  which  I  commented  upon  in  the  October 
number  of  the  Modern  Language  Review  for  1907.  Professor  Skeat  has 
noted  (see  Influence  of  Anglo-French  Pronunciation  upon  Modern  English. 
1901,  p.  27)  what  he  regards  as  Anglo-Norman  scribal  characteristics  in 
the  Laud  MS.  of  the  Chronicle,  but  he  has  not,  as  far  as  I  am  aware, 
called  attention  to  the  passages  I  will  proceed  to  discuss. 

The  first  of  these  occurs  at  the  end  of  MS.  C  (=  Cott.  Tib.  B.  i)  of 
the  Chronicle  and  is  a  twelfth  century  addition  to  the  annal  for  1066. 
It  runs : 

[pa  Normen]  flugon  ]>a  Englisca.  Da  wes  fer  an  of  Norwegan  fe  wiSstod  fet 
Englisce  folc,  fet  hi  ne  micte.  fa  brigge  ofterstigan,  ne  sige  gerechen.  Da  seite  an 
Englisce  mid  anre  flame,  ac  hit  nactes  ne  widstod.  send  fa  com  an  o)>er  under 
fere  brigge.  end  hine  f  urustang  en  under  fere  brunie.  fa  com  Harold  Engla  chinge 
ofer  fere  brigge,  &  hys  furde  forS  mid  hine,  &  fere  michel  wel  geslogon.  ge 
Norweis  ge  Flserning,  &  fes  cyninges  sunu  Hetmundus  let  Harold  faran  ham  to 
Norweie  mid  alle  f4  scipe. 

While  this  extract  contains  several  features  that  link  it  with  other 
documents  of  similar  age,  such  as  the  forms  wes,  ]>et,  brigge,  amd,  michel, 
gerechen,  it  has  peculiarities  of  spelling  and  of  inflexion  which  would 
satisfy  the  hypothesis  that  the  writer's  native  tongue  was  not  English. 
Such  are  the  confusion  in  the  notation  of  guttural  and  palatal  con- 
sonants, in  micte,  nactes  for  mihton,  nahtes ;  chinge  by  the  side  of  cyninges ; 
the  erroneous  final  e  in  seite  (=  O.  E.  sceat '  shot ') ;  ]>ere  for  \>cer ;  chinge 


506  Miscellaneous  Notes 

used  for  the  nominative ;  the  collapse  of  inflexions  seen  in  Norweis  by 
the  side  of  Norwegan;  micte  formihton;  mid  alle  ]>d  scipe  for  mid  eallum 
]>dm  scipum.  For  s  =  sc  in  seite,  cf.  soten  in  Layamon  (later  text)  1876. 

Two  early  occurrences  of  words  are  supplied  by  the  forms  brunie 
and  en  under.  The  former  is  not  recorded  before  1175  (Cotton 
Homilies),  though  healsbryni^e  occurs  amongst  the  early  twelfth 
century  glosses  on  Aldhelm  (ed.  Napier,  p.  147,  line  418).  In  the 
present  instance  the  direct  source  may  well  be  the  Old  French  brunie 
rather  than  the  Icelandic  brynja.  The  latter,  en  under,  is  pretty 
certainly  intended  for  the  preposition  anunder,  which  has  hitherto  been 
exemplified  only  from  the  thirteenth  century. 

The  second  passage  for  consideration  forms  the  concluding  paragraph 
of  MS.  D  (=  Cott.  Tib.  B.  iv)  of  the  Chronicle ;  it  is  the  annal  for  the 
year  1130,  but  is  misdated  MLXXX  (for  MCXXX),  and  records  the 
failure  of  the  rebellion  of  Angus,  Earl  of  Moray.  (See  Mr  Plummer's 
edition  of  Earle's  Saxon  Chronicles,  vol.  II,  p.  xxxii.)  It  is  as  follows : 

Her  wer>  Anagus  ofsleien  frdm  Scotta  eere.  &  )>er  werjj  micel  weell  ofsleigen.  mid 
him.  J>er  wes  codes  rij>t  gesochen  on  him  for  >et  he  wes  all  for  sw<56rn. 

We  observe  here  certain  features  noticed  in  the  Paternoster  referred 
to  above :  the  omission  of  h  in  eere  for  here ;  i\>  for  ih  in  ri\>t ;  c  (=  k)  for 
g  in  codes  for  Godes  (cf.  kult  for  gulte  in  the  Paternoster).  We  have 
also  the  interpolated  vowel  between  a  liquid  and  another  consonant 
in  Anagus,  which  may  be  paralleled  by  ileke  for  ilke  (Old  English 
Miscellany,  p.  28),  arum  for  arm  (Havelok,  1982).  Other  noteworthy 
points  are  the  use  of  geminated  vowels  to  represent  vowels  originally 
short,  in  eere  (O.  E.  here),  weell  (0.  E.  wed)  and  for  su66rn  (O.  E.  for- 
sworen)',  and  the  unusual  spelling  wer\  for  wear]).  The  form  gesochen 
would  seem  to  be  a  positive  blunder;  Mr  Plummer  very  plausibly 
takes  it  to  be  for  gerochen,  intended  as  the  passive  participle  of  gewrecan 
'  to  avenge.' 

There  is  also  a  point  of  syntax  which  calls  for  remark.  The  passage 
affords  a  much  earlier  instance  of  the  conjunction  '  for  that'  (='  because') 
than  has  hitherto  been  recorded.  The  Oxford  Dictionary  gives  it  first 
from  Ormin.  But  the  question  naturally  arises,  whether  the  instance 
before  us  is  to  be  looked  upon  as  genuinely  representing  contemporary 
usage,  or  is  only  due  to  the  ignorance  of  a  foreign  scribe,  who  made  the 
nearest  approximation  he  could  to  the  normal  for  }>cem  (}>on,  }>y)  }>cet, 
for]>an  (fortyi)  fyet. 

The  importance  of  the  two  passages  here  considered  seems  to  be 
that  they  belong  to  the  very  earliest  decades  of  the  history  of  Middle 


Miscellaneous  Notes  507 

English,  and  probably  show  us  the  old  language  in  the  very  act  of 
breaking  down  in  the  hands  of  writers  familiar  only  with  the  phonetic 
system  of  French. 

C.  TALBUT  ONIONS. 
OXFORD. 


'To  HAVE  ONE'S  RAIK.' 

As  a  supplement  to  my  note  An  Unrecorded  Reading  in  Piers 
Plowman  printed  in  the  Modern  Language  Review  for  January,  1908, 
and  in  view  of  its  having  been  challenged  elsewhere,  it  may  be  well 
to  record  a  third  occurrence  of  this  phrase  which  I  have  found  in  a 
northern  poem  of  the  fourteenth  century  relating  to  the  Scottish  wars 
and  printed  in  the  Rolls  edition  of  Pierre  de  Langtofb's  Chronicle, 
Vol.  n,  App.  iv,  p.  458: 

So  lauge  the  lebard  loves  the  layk, 

wit  his  onsped  your  sped  ye  spille, 
And  lates  the  lion  have  his  raike, 

wit  werke  in  werdl  ase  he  wille. 

C.  TALBUT  ONIONS. 
OXFORD. 


A  NOTE  ON  '  EXODUS/  LI.  56  ff. 

oferfor  he  mid  Sy  folce        faestena  worn, 
oS  ftset  hie  on  guSmyrce        gearwe  bseron. 

nearwe  genyddon        on  norSwegas, 

wiston  him  be  suSan        sigelwara  land,  etc. 

Blackburn,  the  latest  editor  of  the  O.  E.  Exodus  (Belles  Lettres 
Series),  in  his  note  on  guftmyrce  (p.  38)  remarks  that  the  mention  of 
the  Ethiopians  in  the  above  passage  is  not  easy  to  explain,  as  the 
original  has  nothing  to  suggest  it,  and  that  the  notion  of  the  cloud 
as  a  shelter  from  heat  occurs  nowhere  in  the  Scriptures.  He  suggests 
also  that  guftmyrce,  which  is  usually  regarded  as  an  adjective,  '  war- 
dusky,'  here  used  as  a  substantive,  '  Ethiopian,'  is  a  derivative  of  mearc 
meaning  '  warlike-borderer,'  and  supports  his  theory  by  citing  per  viam 
deserti  and  in  extremis  finibus  deserti  solitudinis  of  the  original,  and  the 
words  mearchofu  61,  and  mearclandum  67,  which  occur  in  the  O.  E. 
version.  But  the  poet's  mention  of  the  Ethiopians  is  inseparably 
connected  with  his  conception  of  the  purpose  of  the  cloud,  and  of  the 


508  Miscellaneous  Notes 

geography  of  the  country  over  which  the  Israelites  were  marching. 
To  him  the  cloud  was  a  'canopy/  'net,'  'sail,'  spread  by  the  Almighty 
over  the  hosts  of  Israel  as  a  protection  from  the  heat  of  the  scorching 
sun  of  the  Sun-folk's  (Sigelwara)  land,  where  the  cliffs  were  burning 
hot,  and  the  people  dusky  with  the  sun's  heat,  and  to  the  confines  of 
which,  as  he  conceived,  the  Israelites  had  come  in  their  flight  before 
Pharaoh.  The  mention  of  a  wilderness  in  the  original  should  also  be 
taken  into  account.  It  is  evident  that  the  poet  took  it  to  be  a  waste 
country  bordering  on  the  Ethiopian  desert,  which  is  mentioned  in  the 
following  passage  in  Alfred's  Orosius  (p.  8,  Sweet's  edition):  'Affrica 
7  Asia  hiera  landgemircu  onginnaS  of  Alexandria,  Egypta  burge,  7  ligeS 
Saet  londgemaerc  suS  Sonan  ofer  Nilus  <5a  ea,  7  swa  ofer  Ethiopica  westenne 
o5  5one  SuSgarsecg.' 

The  second  element  of  the  O.  E.  name  Sigel-hearwa  also,  which 
designates  an  Ethiopian,  still  remains  obscure.  Does  the  whole  compound 
mean  '  one  who  despises  the  sun,'  or  less  probably,  '  one  harassed  by  the 
sun,'  -hearwa  being  related  to  O.  E.  hyrwan,  '  to  speak  ill  of  anyone,' 
'  despise,'  '  harass,'  0.  H.  G.  harwian,  '  exasperare '  ?  It  is  impossible  to 
relate  -hearwa  to  the  second  part  of  the  plural  form  Sigel-waras, 
'Sun-folk.' 

O.  T.  WILLIAMS. 

BANGOR. 


THE  MYTHICAL  ANCESTOR  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  EAST  ANGLIA. 

The  earliest  genealogy  of  the  East  Anglian  kings  is  that  given  in 
the  Cotton  MS.  Vespasian  B.  6,  of  the  ninth  century.  Unfortunately 
the  list  occurs  on  what  was  apparently  once  the  last  page  of  the  book, 
and  the  writing  is  rubbed  and  faint,  especially  towards  the  end  of  the 
pedigree. 

Sweet  (Oldest  English  Texts,  171)  reads  the  last  names  as  '  tyt  —  r . 
ing  .  care  . .  uodning  .  uoden  frealafing.'  If  the  MS.  is  examined  under  a 
glass  in  a  good  light,  the  second  and  third  names  appear  quite  indisput- 
ably to  be  casering  caser.  The  faint  ser  should  be  compared  with  the 
same  combination  of  letters  in  sergius  in  the  list  of  popes  on  fol.  107  b. 
There  is  no  trace  of  any  letter  following  the  r  of  caser. 

The  Vespasian  MS.  accordingly  confirms  Florence  of  Worcester,  who 
places  Casere  after  Woden  at  the  head  of  the  East  Anglian  pedigree 
(ed.  Thorpe,  I,  249). 


•     Miscellaneous  Notes  509 

Casere  is  twice  mentioned  in  Widsith :  first  as  the  Emperor  of 
the  East,  Casere  weold  Creacum,  and  subsequently  as  the  ruler  Wala 
rices.  The  name  Caesar  must  early  have  been  familiar  to  the  tribes  of 
North  Germany,  and  may  have  been  introduced  into  the  Old  Anglian 
speech,  as  Hoops  suggests  ( Waldbdume  und  Kulturpflanzen  im  germa- 
nischen  Altertum,  1905,  p.  569),  through  Anglian  or  Saxon  mercenaries 
in  Roman  pay. 

That  an  obscure  coast  tribe  should  have  made  Caesar  the  ancestor 
of  their  royal  house,  and  have  given  him  Woden  for  a  father,  throws, 
perhaps,  some  little  light  upon  their  outlook  towards  Rome.  It  may 
be  paralleled  by  the  fact  that,  already  in  the  fourth  century,  the 
Burgundians  claimed  to  be  of  Roman  descent.  (Ammianus  Marcellinus, 
xxvin,  5,  11,  quod  iam  inde  a,  temporibus  priscis  subolem  se  esse 
Romanam  Burgundii  sciunt.) 

R.  W.  CHAMBERS. 
LONDON. 


ENGLISH  TAGS  IN  MATTHEW  OF  PARIS. 

The  following  tags  of  English  from  the  Historia  Minor  of  Matthew 
of  Paris1  are  in  themselves  of  no  particular  interest.  They  bring  forward 
no  strikingly  unusual  forms ;  they  neither  prove  nor  disprove  the 
contention  that  Matthew  of  Paris  was  an  Englishman  who  shortly  after 
the  Norman  Conquest  spoke  English  easily.  They  do  offer  the  suggestion, 
however,  that  a  careful  search  of  the  Latin  chronicles  written  in  England 
at  the  time  of  the  Middle  English  period  might  disclose  bits  of  English 
embedded  in  the  Latin,  which  would,  perhaps,  more  nearly  represent 
the  spoken  English  of  the  time  than  do  the  conscious  productions  that 
we  have,  written,  as  they  are,  in  a  conventional  literary  form. 

1.  Entry  for  the  year  10752.     'Qualiter   Dunelmensis   episcopus 
interfectus  est...Unus  eorum...patria  lingua  insibilans  dixit,  Sort  red, 
god  red,  slea  we  \e  bissop ! ' 

2.  The  Battle  of  the  Standard,  11383.     'Cum  enim  illis  satirice 
dicitur  lingua  sua  patria,  Yry,  yry,  standard.' 

Does  yry  —  '  hasten  '  =  eire?  Compare  the  noun  eir :  as  ssipes  wi\> 
gret  eir  come  toward  londe,  Robert  of  Gloucester. 

1  Matthaei  Parisiensis  Historia  Anglorum,  sive,  ut  vulgo  dicitur,  Historia  Minor.    Ed. 
Sir  F.  Madden.     Rolls  Series.     1866.     3  vols. 

2  i,  21—22.  3  i,  260. 


510  Miscellaneous  Notes 

3.  One  of  the  songs  of  the  Flemish  soldiers  under  the  Earl  of 
Leicester,  1173,  was1 

Hoppe,  hoppe,  Wileken,  hoppe,  Wileken 
Engelond  is  min  ant  tin. 

4.  Bartholomew,  Bishop  of  Exeter,  1161,  in  a  dream  heard2  '  vocem 
puerilem  hunc  sermonem  Anglice  pronunciantem,  Riseth  op,  alle  Cristes 
icorne,  Levenoth  ure  fader  of]ns  wrold  fundeth! 

5.  'Terraemotus'3  is  glossed  'quern  Anglici  patria  lingua,  Erhdune 

vocant.' 

JAMES  F.  ROYSTER. 
CHAPEL  HILL,  N.C.,  U.S.A. 


WAS  'DUE  DESEET'  WALTER  DEVEREUX? 

Professor  Cunliffe's  note  on  Gascoigne  and  Shakespeare,  Modern 
Language  Review,  iv,  232,  in  which  he  suggests  that  'Due  Desert' 
denoted  Walter  Devereux,  Earl  of  Essex,  finds  confirmation  in  the 
allusion  there  to  '  the  Etimologie  of  his  name.'  The  name  Devereux  as 
is  well  known,  came  from  'd'Evreux,'  but  to  Elizabethan  etymologists  this 
easily  resolved  itself  through  the  spelling  'Deureux'  into  '  d'(h)eureux,' 
with  suggestions  of  '  success,'  '  victory,'  '  good  hap,'  etc.  I  do  not  know 
whether  Edmund  Spenser  took  the  part  of  Silvanus  at  the  Princely 
Pleasures  in  1575,  but  he  was  for  several  years  an  occasional  inmate  of 
Leicester's  London  House,  as  he  was  later  a  dependent  of  the  Devereux 
family  there,  and  was  doubtless  very  familiar  with  this  '  Etimologie '  of 
'  Deureux ' :  so  much  so  that  in  Prothalamion  he  transfers  the  '  due 
desert'  compliment,  the  laurelled  victory,  and  the  'heureux'  etymology, 
from  Walter  to  Robert  Devereux,  from  father  to  son : 

Joy  have  thou  of  thy  noble  victorie, 

And  endlesse  happinesse  of  thine  ovme  name 

That  promiseth  the  same. 

Let  us  turn  back  to  Gascoigne's  'mysterious  phrases':  'She  dyd  long 
sithens  convert  Due  Desert  into  yonder  same  Lawrell  tree.  The  which 
may  very  well  be  so,  considering  the  Etimologie  of  his  name,  for  we  see  the 
Lawrell  branch  is  a  token  of  triumph,'  etc.  It  is  not  the  Laurel  branch, 
but  the  triumph,  of  which  '  the  Laurel,  meed  of  mighty  conquerors,'  is  a 
token,  that  is  uppermost  in  the  writer's  mind.  The  phrase  'due  desert' 
was  of  course  in  common  use,  e.g.,  Mother  Hubberd's  Tale,  1.  777 ;  and 

1    i,  381.  2  i,  312.  s  m>  20. 


Miscellaneous  Notes  511 

E.  Hake's  dedication  of  his  translation  of  The  Imitation  or  Following 
of  Christ,  1568: 

1st  Princely  race  that  brings  the  crowne  of  fame  ? 
Or  due  desert  that  hath  the  same  assignde  1 

This  particular  instance  of  'due  desert'  was  Thomas  Duke  of  Norfolk, 
who  was  beheaded  in  1572,  three  years  before  Professor  Cunliffe's  'Due 
Desert'  had  the  misfortune  to  achieve  a  very  dubious  triumph  in  Ireland. 
There  seems  little  doubt  that  Professor  Cunliffe's  identification  of '  Due 
Desert '  is  correct. 

H.    LlTTLEDALE. 

CARDIFF. 


BEN  JONSON  AND  'THE  ISLE  OF  DOGS.' 

The  part  taken  by  Ben  Jonson,  as  writer  and  actor,  in  The  Isle  of 
Dogs,  to  which  I  called  attention  in  my  notice  of  Mr  Greg's  Henslowe's 
Diary  (Modern  Language  Review,  iv,  411)  perhaps  helps  to  interpret  the 
chaff  of  him  in  Dekker's  Satiromastix,  11.  1513 — 1527  : 

'  Tucca.  No  Fye'st ;  my  name's  Hamlet  reuenge  :  thou  hast  been  at  Parris 
garden  hast  not  ? 

Horace.     Yes  Captaine,  I  ha  plaide  Zulziman  there. 

Sir  Rees  ap  Vaughan.     Then  M.  Horace  you  piaide  the  part  of  an  honest  man. 

Tucca.  Death  of  Hercules,  he  could  neuer  play  that  part  well  in's  life,  no 
Fulkes  you  could  not :  thou  call'st  Demetrius  lorneyman  Poet,  but  thou  putst  vp  a 
Supplication  to  be  a  poor  lorneyman  Player,  and  hadst  beene  still  so,  but  that  thou 
couldst  not  set  a  good  face  vpon't :  thou  hast  forgot  how  thou  amblest  (in  leather 
pilch)  by  a  play-wagon,  in  the  high  way,  and  took'st  mad  leronimoes  part,  to  get 
seruice  among  the  Mimickes  :  and  when  the  Stagerites  banisht  thee  into  the  He  of 
Dogs,  thou  turn'dst  Bandog  (villanous  Guy)  &  euer  since  bitest  therefore  I  aske  if 
th'ast  been  at  Parris-garden,  because  thou  hast  such  a  good  mouth ;  thou  baitst  well, 
read,  lege,  saue  thy  selfe  and  read.' 

Possibly  Zulziman  was  Jonson's  part  in  The  Isle  of  Dogs ;  there  is 
no  reason  why  Solyman  in  Solyman  and  Perseda  should,  as  is  sometimes 
suggested,  be  meant.  The  reference  to  Paris  Garden  may  confirm  the 
view  that  The  Isle  of  Dogs  was  played  at  the  Swan  in  the  Liberty  of 
Paris  Garden;  or  Dekker  may  only  be  jesting  on  the  suitability  of 
Jonson's  temper  to  the  'game'  of  bear-baiting,  ordinarily  called  'the 
game  of  Paris  Garden.' 

E.  K.  CHAMBERS. 

LONDON. 


512  Miscellaneous  Notes 


THE  DATE  OF  FLETCHER'S  'THE  CHANCES.' 

Can  anyone  help  me  to  resolve  the  apparent  contradiction  in  the 
evidence  as  to  the  date  of  Fletcher's  The  Chances  ?  The  plot  is 
taken  from  Cervantes's  story  of  La  Senora  Cornelia.  This  was  first 
published  among  the  Novelas  exemplares  of  1613,  and  it  is  hard  to  see 
how  Fletcher  can  have  known  it  before  that  year,  or  even,  if,  as  some 
scholars  think,  he  was  ignorant  of  Spanish,  before  the  issue  of  the 
French  translation  of  1615.  On  this  I  am  allowed  to  quote  from  a 
letter  which  Prof.  Fitzmaurice-Kelly,  than  whom  there  can  be  no  better 
authority,  was  kind  enough  to  write  me  on  December  9,  1908. 

At  least  one  of  the  Novelas  exemplares  was  written  long  before  1613.  In  Don 
Quixote  (Part  i,  Chapter  47)  Rinconetey  Cortadillo  is  mentioned,  and,  as  the  Privilegio 
of  Don  Quixote  is  dated  September  26,  1604,  this  story  must  be  dated  earlier  than 
this. 

No  doubt  the  Novelas  were  written  at  odds  and  ends  of  times,  and  very  likely 
there  is  a  great  interval  between  the  earliest  and  the  latest  of  them.  But  there  is 
no  evidence  to  justify  Watts  in  saying  (p.  119)  that  the  majority  were  written  between 
1599  and  1603.  La  Gitanilla,  for  instance,  was  clearly  written  after  the  transfer  of 
the  court  from  Valladolid  to  Madrid  (January  20,  1606).  The  Marques  del  Priego 
was  evidently  dead  when  the  Coloquio  de  los  Perros  was  written :  so  it  must  be 
later  than  September  2,  1606.  Ana  so  with  the  rest. 

As  it  happens,  there  is  a  dispute  about  the  date  of  La  Senora  Cornelia.  Kius, 
in  his  Bibliografw  critica  of  Cervantes's  works  (vol.  n,  p.  354),  argues  that  it  must  be 
assigned  to  a  date  long  before  1600,  and  Rius  is  an  acknowledged  authority.  But, 
in  my  introduction  to  MacColl's  translation  of  the  Novelas  1  have  tried  to  show 
that  Rius  is  mistaken,  and  the  drift  of  my  argument  is  this.  Rius's  only  reason  for 
putting  La  Senora  Cornelia  so  far  back  is  that  (as  he  alleges)  Hardy  dramatized 
this  story  about  the  year  1595.  This  seems  a  rash  deduction  from  a  passage  in 
a  letter  at  the  beginning  of  vol.  n  of  Hardy's  Theatre  (Paris,  1625):  'Ce  n'est 
qu'un  bouquet  bigarre  de  six  fleurs  vieillies  depuis  le  temps  d'une  jeunesse  qui  les  a 
produites.'  Rius  takes  this  quite  literally,  supposes  that  Hardy  was  born  about 
1570,  and  maintains  that,  if  Hardy  did  translate  La  Senora  Cornelia  in  his  youth, 
the  translation  must  have  been  made  at  latest  in  1600.  Therefore  (he  goes  on)  the 
original  should  be  assigned  to  1590  or  thereabouts. 

This  implies  that  Hardy  read  the  story  in  MS.  But  there  is  nothing  to  lead  us 
to  suppose  that  there  was  a  MS.  copy  of  the  story  floating  about,  or  that  Hardy 
could  have  read  it,  if  he  had  met  with  such  a  thing.  At  any  rate,  he  did  not  read 
the  story  in  Spanish,  but  took  it  from  the  French  translation  of  the  Novelas 
exemplares  published  by  Rosset  and  the  Sieur  d'Audiguier  in  1615.  Several  small 
but  significant  details  prove  this.  Rosset  translates  La  Gitanilla  by  '  La  belle 
Egyptienne':  so  does  Hardy.  Rosset  converts  the  corregidor  into  a  senechal :  so 
does  Hardy.  And  so  on. 

Accordingly — at  least  this  is  my  contention — Rius's  argument  goes  to  pieces. 
There  is  not  the  least  reason  to  think  that  La  Senora  Cornelia  was  written  in  1590 
or  thereabouts.  Judging  by  the  style,  I  should  guess  it  was  written  after  Don 
Quixote — say,  about  1606 ;  but  this  is  only  a  conjecture,  and  we  really  know  nothing 
as  to  the  date.... 

. .  .1  think  we  may  reject  as  untenable  the  theory  of  some  of  the  Novelas  exemplares 
being  circulated  in  manuscript  before  their  publication  in  the  autumn  of  1613.  If 
this  had  occurred,  we  should  expect  to  find  some  traces  of  it  in  Spain.  There  are 


Miscellaneous  Notes  513 

many  dramatic  adaptations  of  the  Novelets  exemplares  in  Spanish  after  1613,  but 
none  before.  It  is  an  expensive  and  tedious  business  to  make  copies,  and  Cervantes 
was  too  poor  to  pay  for  copies,  and  too  busy  earning  his  living  at  odd  jobs  to  make 
the  copies  himself.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  copies  circulated  in  Spain  : 
we  should  require  overwhelming  evidence  to  convince  us  that  they  circulated  out  of 
Spain.  There  is  no  blinking  the  fact  that  Cervantes  was  not  at  all  celebrated  till 
the  first  Part  of  Don  Quixote  appeared  in  1605:  and,  to  put  it  bluntly,  he  was  not 
worth  copying  or  robbing  till  that  year. 

Even  after  all  allowance  is  made  for  one's  natural  revolt  against  the 
much  over-worked  hypothesis  of  manuscript  transmission  as  a  solution 
of  literary  problems,  Prof.  Fitzmaurice-Kelly's  convincing  argument  seems 
to  me  wholly  to  forbid  any  assumption  that  La  Senora  Cornelia,  whether 
written  in  1590  or  in  1606,  was  known  to  Fletcher  before  1613  at 
earliest.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  passage  in  The  Chances  which 
it  is  extremely  difficult  to  assign  to  a  later  date  than  about  1609.  This 
is  the  bit  of  dialogue  between  the  Landlady  and  Peter,  which  begins  on 
Act  iii,  Sc.  1,  1.  4 : 

Landlady.     I  will  know. 

Peter.  Ye  shall,  any  thing 

Lyes  in  my  power  :    The  Duke  of  Loraine  now 

Is  seven  thousand  strong  :   I  heard  it  of  a  fish-wife, 

A  woman  of  fine  knowledge. 

Landlady.  Sirrah,  Sirrah. 

Peter.  The  Popes  Bulls  are  broke  loose  too,  and  'tis  suspected 

They  shall  be  baited  in  England. 

This  does  not  come  from  La  Senora  Cornelia,  and  it  would  have  had 
very  little  point,  unless  it  had  a  topical  point  intelligible  to  an  audience 
at  the  time  of  its  presentation  in  England.  But  for  the  puzzle  arising 
from  the  date  of  Fletcher's  source,  I  should  have  had  no  hesitation  in 
assigning  it  to  1609.  The  jest  about  the  Pope's  bulls  in  particular 
would  have  seemed  an  unmistakable  echo  of  the  controversies  of  that 
and  the  immediately  preceding  years.  The  Recusancy  Act  of  1606 
had  led  to  the  issue  of  papal  brevia  in  1607  and  1608,  condemning  the 
action  of  those  Catholics  who  took  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  these  in 
their  turn  to  the  Apologia  pro  luramento  Fidelitatis  published  by 
James  the  First  in  February,  1608.  This  was  anonymous,  but  the 
authorship  became  matter  of  common  knowledge,  and  a  Catholic  reply 
was  anticipated.  The  interest  caused  by  the  controversy  is  traceable  in 
contemporary  letters.  Thus  M.  De  la  Boderie,  the  French  ambassador 
in  England,  wrote  in,  a  despatch  of  June  22,  1608  (Ambassades,  iii, 
347),  'Cependant  il  vient  de  Rome,  ce  disent  les  Catholiques,  une 
excommunication  fulminante  centre  tous  ceux  qui  ont  fait  ledit  serment, 
ou  le  voudroient  faire,  qui  achevera  bien  de  mettre  tous  ces  pauvres 
gens  en  proie.'  Similarly,  on  February  14,  1609,  John  Chamberlain 
M.  L.  R.  iv.  33 


514  Miscellaneous  Notes 

wrote  to  Dudley  Carleton  (Birch,  Court  and  Times  of  James  the  First, 
i,  87),  '  The  Pope  hath  written  to  the  French  King,  complaining  that 
our  King  misuseth  him  continually  in  table-talk,  and  calls  him  Anti- 
christ at  every  word,  which  doth  so  enrage  his  holiness,  that  some 
papists  fear  it  may  drive  him  to  thunder  and  lighten  with  excommuni- 
cation.' But  the  closest  parallel  to  the  gossip  of  The  Chances  is 
afforded  by  the  following  passage  from  Bishop  Montague's  preface  to 
his  edition  of  the  Works  of  King  James  in  1616. 

After  that  the  Apologie  was  out,  his  Maiestie  diuerse  times  would  be  pleased  to 
utter  a  Resolution  of  his  ;  that  if  the  Pope  and  Cardinall  would  not  rest  in  his 
answere,  and  sit  dowue  by  it ;  take  the  Oath  as  it  was  intended  for  a  point  of 
Allegiance  and  Civill  Obedience  ;  Hee  would  publish  the  Apologie  in  his  owne  name 
with  a  Preface  to  all  the  Princes  in  Christendome ;  wherein  he  would  publish  such  a 
Confession  of  his  Faith,  perswade  the  Princes  so  to  vindicate  their  owne  Power, 
discover  so  much  of  the  Mysterie  of  Iniquitie  unto  them ;  as  the  Popes  Bulles  should 
pull  in  their  homes,  and  himselfe  wish  he  had  never  medled  with  the  matter. 

The  Apology  was  in  fact  answered  by  Bellarmine  under  the  name  of 
his  chaplain  Matthew  Tortus  in  October,  1608,  and  in  June,  1609, 
James  fulfilled  his  threat  by  the  issue  of  A  Premonition  to  all  the 
most  mighty  Monarchs,  Kings,  Free  Princes  and  States  of  Christendom. 
Fletcher  might  well  have  adapted  the  royal  jest  to  the  purposes  of  his 
dialogue,  at  any  time  during  the  interval  between  the  two  books. 
The  other  allusion,  to  the  forces  of  the  Duke  of  Lorraine,  would  fit  a 
date  after  the  death  of  the  Duke  of  Cleves  and  Juliers  on  March  25, 
1609,  when  gossip  was  beginning  to  estimate  the  strength  of  the 
parties  of  Europe  in  anticipation  of  the  Cleves  war.  Henri  IV  certainly 
hoped  for  the  aid  of  the  Duke  of  Lorraine,  and  sent  De  Bassompierre 
to  ask  for  it  in  the  course  of  the  following  August  (Memoires,  i,  237). 
No  doubt  the  strength  of  Lorraine  may  have  come  into  question  at  other 
and  later  dates,  but  the  development  of  Stuart  politics  in  their  relation 
to  the  Holy  See  does  not  suggest  any  other  appropriate  occasion  for 
the  references  to  bull-baiting,  before  Fletcher's  death  on  August  29, 
1625. 

E.  K.  CHAMBERS. 

LONDON. 


Miscellaneous  Notes  515 


Two  UNPUBLISHED  LETTERS  TO  GOETHE  FROM  AN  ENGLISH 
TRANSLATOR  OF  'GOETZ  VON  BERLICHINGEN.' 

Walter  Scott's  translation  of  Goetz  von  Berlichingen,  which  appeared 
in  February,  1799,  was  followed  within  a  few  weeks  by  another  \»ersion, 
almost  unknown  in  literary  history.  The  author,  Rose  d'Aguilar,  after- 
wards Mrs  Lawrence,  published  under  the  latter  name  a  translation  of 
Gessner's  works  in  1802,  also  a  mythological  anthology  and  some  poetry. 
Her  Gortz  von  Berlingen1,  as  she  calls  the  hero  of  the  drama,  bears 
witness  to  her  enthusiasm  rather  than  to  her  skill  or  conscientiousness 
as  a  translator.  The  following  sentences  from  the  Preface  are  perhaps 
worth  quoting2 :  '  The  author,  the  celebrated  Goethe,  is  known  through- 
out Europe  by  various  literary  publications,  particularly  by  his  Sorrows 
of  Werter;  a  work  beautiful  in  its  separate  pictures,  though  in  its 
general  tendency  unfavourable  to  virtue  and  happiness,  and  which  but 
for  this  fatal  objection,  might  have  ranked  with  the  most  successful 

efforts  of  modern  genius He  whose  taste  is  formed  in  the  laws  of  the 

Greek  or  the  French  stage  will  scarcely  tolerate  the  irregularities  of 
Gortz  of  Berlingen :  the  disciples  of  Shakespeare  and  nature  will  give 
him  welcome,  and  dismiss  him  with  applause.... This  play  was  published 
in  Germany  about  the  year  1771.  The  author  therefore  could  not  in 
writing  it,  have  any  reference  to  the  melancholy  crisis  in  which  Europe 
is  at  present  involved.  To  prevent,  however,  any  improper  application, 
a  few  sentences  are  softened  or  expunged.' 

In  a  note  to  the  Dramatis  Personae  the  translator  justifies  the 
liberties  she  has  taken  with  the  names  of  the  characters.  '  The  name 
of  Falkenhelm,  which  will  be  familiar  to  those  who  are  well  read  in  the 
German  Romances  of  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  has  been 
substituted  for  that  of  Weislingen,  as  more  easy  to  English  pronuncia- 
tion. The  translator  has  also  ventured  to  change  the  appellation  of 
Francis  for  that  of  Frederic  [i.e.,  Weisslingens  Bub],  to  avoid  the  con- 
fusion which  three  characters  of  the  same  name  might  have  occasioned 
the  reader.'  The  same  principle  has  evidently  led  to  other  changes : 
Goetz  von  Berlichingen  becomes  '  Gortz  of  Berlingen ' ;  Max  Stumpf 
becomes  '  Mark  Sturt ' ;  Metzler  '  Meisner ' ;  Jaxthausen,  '  Yarthausen ' ; 
Liebetraut,  '  Veritas.' 

1  Gortz  of  Berlingen,  With  the  Iron  Hand.     An  Historical  Drama  of  the  Fifteenth 
Century.     Translated  from  the  German  of  Goethe,  the  Author  of  Werter.     Liverpool, 
printed  by  J.  McCreery. 

2  I  am  indebted  to  the  Editor  of  this  Review  for  the  following  notes  on  the  translation, 
a  copy  of  which  is  in  the  British  Museum. 

33—2 


516  Miscellaneous  Notes 

The  translation  is  exceedingly  free  and  often  inaccurate.  In  Act  II 
Veritas'  [i.e.,  Liebetraut's]  song  is  omitted.  The  scene  '  Im  Spessart ' 
is  headed  '  Yarthausen — the  Dining  Hall/  the  translator  having  possibly 
read  'Spessart'  as  ' Speisesaal.'  The  most  conspicuous  addition  is  in 
the  Vehmgericht  scene,  where  the  translator  has  evidently  borrowed 
from  those  'German  Romances  of  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries' 
to  which  she  refers  in  the  above  note.  The  scene  is  supplied  with  the 
following  descriptive  stage-direction :  '  Midnight.  Inside  of  a  Ruined 
Chapel.  (The  storm  is  still  heard  raging  without,  and  sweeping  at 
intervals  thro'  the  long  ailes  of  the  building.  Partial  and  transient 
gleams  of  moon-light  serve  to  discover  the  dismantled  windows,  the 
mouldering  monuments,  and  the  insignia  of  knighthood,  swords,  helmets, 
and  escutcheons,  which  are  displayed  against  the  walls.  In  the  back- 
ground is  an  altar  sinking  in  ruins.  Broken  pillars,  and  fragments 
of  images  lie  scattered  around.  The  ruins  are  in  many  places  overgrown 
with  ivy,  moss  and  weeds.  Near  the  altar  are  two  rows  of  seats.  Upon 
the  altar  lie  a  dagger  and  a  cord).' 

The  author  sent  her  book  to  Goethe  accompanied  by  a  letter,  which 
was  followed,  after  some  months,  by  a  second.  Both  were  preserved  by 
the  poet,  and  they  are  to  be  found  in  the  Goethe-Schiller  Archiv  at 
Weimar,  Brief e  an  Goethe,  1800,  pp.  60  and  87. 

September  20th,  1799. 

SIR, 

The  following  imperfect  translation  of  a  beautiful  original  is  submitted 
to  the  author  of  Gotz  von  Berlichingen  as  a  testimony  of  the  respect  his  genius 
commands,  and  a  proof  of  the  admiration  his  excellence  inspires.  Distance,  like 
time,  annihilates  the  constraint  with  which  we  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  living 
authors,  and  in  England  I  may  speak  of  Goethe  and  of  Shakespeare  with  equal 
unreserve,  and  praise,  without  the  imputation  of  flattery,  the  writer  who  has  imitated 
the  beauties,  and  inherited  the  genius  of  our  immortal  Bard. 

The  youth  and  inexperience  of  the  translator  must  be  pleaded  as  an  excuse  for 
many  inaccuracies  and  several  errors  in  the  following  sheets  ;  nor  can  I  flatter 
myself  that  I  possessed  one  requisite  to  encourage  me  to  so  arduous  an  under- 
taking, except  an  unbounded  admiration  of  the  beauties  of  the  original,  and  an 
ardent  desire  to  communicate  them  to  the  English  Public  :  With  them  and  with  you 
it  remains  to  decide  how  far  I  have  succeeded  in  this  difficult  task. 

I  am,  Sir,  with  great  respect, 

Yrs 

ROSE  D'AGUILAR. 
Great  George  St.  Liverpool. 

SIR, 

I  have  ventured  to  desire  my  translation  of  your  celebrated  Drama  Gotz 
von  Berlichingen  may  be  forwarded  to  you,  not  as  a  considering  worthy  your 
attention  or  perusal  but  merely  as  a  tribute  of  respect  and  admiration,  and  as 
a  slight  acknowledgment  of  the  unbounded  pleasure  this,  and  the  rest  of  your  works, 
have  afforded  me.  I  feel  the  greatest  diffidence  in  submitting  this  translation 


Miscellaneous  Notes  517 

to  your  perusal ;  and  am  quite  at  a  loss  how  to  excuse  the  many  errors  and 
inaccuracies  you  will  certainly  perceive  in  it.  With  regard  to  the  trifling  and 
incidental  alterations  or  rather  additions,  I  have  now  and  then  been  obliged  to 
make,  they  were  such  only  as  I  judged  absolutely  necessary  to  accommodate  it 
to  the  English  public,  and  to  explain  to  the  mere  English  Keader  the  force  of  many 
expressions  and  allusions  to  which  it  was  impossible  to  give  in  a  translation  the 
form  and  dignity  they  possess  in  their  original  language.  The  youth  and  inex- 
perience of  the  translator  may  be  pleaded  in  excuse  for  many  errors  ;  as  it  was  my 
first,  so  it  will  probably  be  my  last  attempt :  for  I  was  only  induced  to  undertake 
so  arduous  a  task  by  my  extreme  admiration  of  the  original,  and  by  the  idea  that 
the  English  Public  might  experience  a  portion  of  the  pleasure  I  had  enjoyed  in  the 
perusal  of  a  work,  which  appears  to  me  to  possess  more  than  any  other  Drama  this 
country  or  Germany  has  produced,  the  characteristic  traits  of  Shakespeare's  genius  ; 
— and  which  certainly  displays  his  accuracy  in  the  delineation  of  character,  and  his 
powerful  energy  in  awakening  the  passions.  I  will  not  intrude  longer  on  your 
leisure,  or  indulge  myself  in  expatiating  further  on  the  beauties  of  this  and  many 
others  of  your  writings  which  I  have  dwelt  on  with  pleasure  next  to  rapture.  You 
must  have  heard  the  language  of  panegyric  till  it  has  ceased  to  give  you  pleasure ; — 
and  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  you  could  at  any  time  have  been  flattered  by  the 
commendation  of  an  obscure  stranger.  Yet  I  will  hope  that  you  will  not  reject  this 
testimony  of  respect  and  admiration  when  you  recollect,  that  among  all  those  your 
country  or  your  friends  may  have  offered  you,  there  cannot  have  been  one  tribute 
on  whose  sincerity  you  might  more  justly  depend,  or  which  can  be  supposed  more 
totally  free  from  every  interested  motive. 

I  am  Sir 

with  great  respect 

Yours 

EOSE  D'AGUILAR. 
March  the  5th,  1800. 

If  you  are  so  obliged  as  to  favor  me  with  your  opinion  of  the  translation, 
be  so  good  as  to  direct  to  the  Translator  free  under  cover  to  Dr  Currie,  Liverpool. 

F.  BALDENSPERGER. 

LYONS. 


'MACBETH'  AND  'LINGUA.' 

In  his  valuable  Notes  on  some  English  University  Plays  in  Vol.  in, 
No.  II,  of  this  Review  Prof.  G.  C.  Moore  Smith  alludes  to  some  'dubious 
imitations  of  Shakespeare'  in  the  University  play  Lingua,  ascribed  by 
Sir  J.  Harrington  to  Thomas  Tomkis  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  and 
first  published  in  1607.  Prof.  Moore  Smith's  references  are  to  passages 
in  Julius  Caesar  and  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  and  to  kindred  lines 
in  the  Cambridge  comedy. 

I  should  like  here  to  draw  attention  to  two  parallels  between  Lingua 
and  Macbeth.  If  Tomkis  is  deliberately  parodying  Shakespeare,  as  is, 


f)18  Miscellaneous  Notes 

I  think,  probable,  the  passages  in  Lingua  become  of  great  importance. 
For  they  then  form  an  additional  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence  which 
connects  the  production  of  Macbeth  with  1606.  Lingua,  as  already 
mentioned,  was  first  published  in  1607;  though  it  has  been  conjecturally 
assigned  on  internal  evidence  to  an  earlier  date,  the  hypothesis  is  a 
very  doubtful  one.  I  would  suggest  that  the  play,  the  popularity  of 
which  is  attested  by  six  editions,  was  printed  soon  after  it  was  written ; 
and  that  the  author,  who  shows  a  remarkable  faculty  of  parodying  varied 
literary  and  dramatic  styles,  included  in  it  imitations  of  two  passages  in 
Shakespeare's  recently  acted  tragedy. 

Even,  however,  if  this  view  is  not  accepted,  and  the  resemblances 
between  Macbeth  and  Lingua  are  looked  upon  as  accidental,  they  are 
well  worthy  of  notice. 

In  the  Cambridge  comedy,  Lingua,  who  aspires  to  be  reckoned  among 
the  Senses,  seeks  to  provoke  discord  between  them  by  means  of  a  crown 
and  royal  robe  which  she  lays  in  their  path.  Her  page  Mendacio  declares 
that  these  gifts  have  been  brought  from  heaven  by  Mercury.  The  plot, 
however,  fails,  and,  in  revenge,  she  stirs  up  fresh  strife  among  her  rivals 
through  a  drugged  potion,  which  she  obtains  from  the  hag,  Acrasia. 
To  prevent  bloodshed,  Crapula  in  Act  V,  Sc.  10  summons  Somnus  whom 
he  thus  addresses : 

Soft  sonne  of  night,  right  heyre  to  Quietnesse, 

Labours  repose,  lifes  best  restorative, 

Digestions  careful  1  Nurse,  blouds  Comforter, 

Wits  helpe,  thoughts  charm,  the  stay  of  Microcosme, 

Sweet  Somnus  cheefest  enemy  to  Care : 

Compare  with  these  lines  Macbeth's  apostrophe,  after  the  murder  of 
Duncan : 

Sleepe  that  knits  up  the  ravel'd  Sleeve  of  Care, 
•        The  death  of  each  dayes  life,  sore  Labors  Bath, 

Balme  of  hurt  Minds,  great  Natures  second  Course, 
Chiefe  nourisher  in  Life's  Feast. 

Though,  of  course,  in  any  detailed  descriptions  of  sleep,  some 
parallelism  will  be  found,  the  close  correspondence  of  idea  and  phrase- 
ology in  the  above  passages  is  very  remarkable,  while  the  words 
'  Digestions  carefull  Nurse,'  compared  with  '  Chiefe  nourisher  in  Life's 
Feast,'  seem  to  give  just  the  necessary  touch  of  parody. 

The  other  passage  to  which  I  wish  to  draw  attention  occurs  in 
Scenes  17  and  18  of  the  same  Act.  Somnus  has  bound  fast  the  Senses 
and  Lingua,  but  they  are  talking  in  their  sleep,  while  Phantastes  and 
Heuresis  stand  by  and  listen.  In  the  earlier  part  of  the  Scene  the 


Miscellaneous  Notes  519 

Senses  babble  confusedly,  one  after  the  other;  then  the  dialogue  continues 
as  follows : 

Ling.      Mum,  mum,  mum,  mum. 
Phan.     St,  sirra,  take  heede  you  wake  her  not. 
Heur.     I  knowe  sir  shee  is  fast  a  sleepe,  for  her  mouth  is  shutte. 
Ling.      This  'tis  to  venture  upon  such  uncertainties,  to  loose  so  rich  a  Crowne 
to  no  end,  well,  well. 

Phantastes  then  bids  Heuresis  fetch  Communis  Sensus  and  Memoria 
to  hear  Lingua's  further  utterances.  Whilst  they  are  being  summoned, 
the  scene  proceeds : 

Ling.  Mendatio,  never  talke  farther,  I  doubt  'tis  past  recovery,  and  my  Robe 
likewise,  I  shall  never  have  them  againe,  well,  well. 

Phan.  How  1  her  Crowne,  and  her  Roabe,  never  recover  them  ?  hum,  wast  not 
said  to  bee  left  by  Memory ?  ha?  I  conjecture  here's  some  knavery — fast  lockt  with 
sleepe,  in  good  faith.  Was  that  Crowne  and  Garment  yours  Lingual 

Ling.  I  marry  were  they,  and  that  some  body  hath  felt,  and  shall  feele  more, 
if  I  live. 

Phan.  0  strange,  she  answers  in  her  sleepe  to  my  question,  but  how  come  the 
Senses  to  strive  for  it  ? 

Ling.  Why  I  laide  [it]  upon  purpose  in  their  way,  that  they  might  fall  together 
by  the  eares. 

Phan.     What  a  strange  thing  is  this  1 

Then  in  Scene  18  Communis  Sensus  and  Memoria  appear,  and 
Phantastes  asks  the  sleeping  Lingua  further  questions.  In  her  answers 
she  first  takes  him  to  be  Mendacio  and  afterwards  Acrasia,  whom  she 
thanks  for  the  effects  of  her  potion.  She  then,  according  to  the  stage- 
direction,  '  riseth  in  her  sleepe,  and  walketh.'  Thereupon  Communis 
Sensus  cries  '  how's  this,  is  shee  asleepe  ?  have  you  seene  one  walke  thus 
before  ? '  And  Memoria  answers,  'It  is  a  very  common  thing,  I  have 
seene  many  sicke  of  the  Peripatetick  disease.'  Communis  Sensus 
inquires  '  what  should  be  the  reason  of  it  ? '  and  Memoria  gives  a 
quasi-scientific  explanation  from  Scaliger.  Lingua,  in  reply  to  a  further 
question,  tells  how  she  has  used  Acrasia's  potion,  and  then  lies  down 
again,  still  asleep. 

The  remarkable  resemblance  between  this  episode  and  the  'sleep- 
walking '  scene  in  Macbeth  will,  I  think,  be  evident.  In  both  cases  a 
criminal  heroine  reveals  in  her  sleep  her  guilty  practices ;  in  both  she 
imagines  herself  to  be  conversing  with  the  partner  of  her  misdeeds, 
while  she  is  in  fact  being  watched  and  overheard  by  witnesses  anxious 
to  learn  the  true  significance  of  her  involuntary  confessions. 

But  the  resemblance  is  not  confined  to  the  general  situation.  It 
can  be  traced  also  in  details  of  expression.  Part  of  the  strangely 
impressive  effect  of  Lady  Macbeth's  utterances  in  her  '  slumbery 
agitation '  is  due  to  the  repetition  of  certain  words  and  phrases.  The 


520  Miscellaneous  Notes 

author  of  Lingua  adopts  the  same  device.  Thus  Lingua's  four-fold 
'  mum,  mum,  mum,  mum '  sounds  like  a  parody  of  Lady  Macbeth's 
four-fold  'come,  come,  come,  come'  in  her  final  speech.  The  Doctor 
in  Macbeth  murmurs  '  well,  well,  well ' ;  two  of  Lingua's  speeches  end 
with  'well,  well.'  Just  after  Lady  Macbeth's  entry  the  Doctor  remarks 
'you  see  her  eyes  are  open,'  and  the  Gentlewoman  answers  'I  but 
their  sense  are  shut.'  Is  not  this  parodied  in  Heuresis'  words,  'I  knowe 
sir  shee  is  fast  a  sleepe,  for  her  mouth  is  shutte '  ?  And  as  the  Doctor 
ends  the  Scene  with  the  confession  'My  minde  she  has  mated,  and 
amaz'd  my  sight,'  so  Phan tastes  cries  'What  a  strange  thing  is  this.' 

But  the  most  striking  fact  of  all  is  that  Lingua  should  not  only 
talk  in  her  sleep,  but  that  she  should  rise  and  walk.  This  is  in  no 
way  necessary  to  the  plot  of  the  Cambridge  play,  and  it  is  difficult  to 
see  why  it  was  introduced  unless  the  author  had  Lady  Macbeth  in  his 
mind. 

I  think  that  the  reasonable  inference  from  the  whole  evidence  is 
that  Tomkis  had  recently  seen  Macbeth,  and  was  making  good- 
humoured  fun  of  parts  of  the  tragedy.  Otherwise  we  must  conclude 
that  by  some  extraordinary  chance  Shakespeare  and  the  academic 
playwright  invented  about  the  same  time  situations  and  speeches  so 
curiously  akin. 

F.  S.  BOAS. 

LONDON. 


DISCUSSIONS. 

'AHRIMANES,'  BY  THOMAS  LOVE  PEACOCK. 

ALL  admirers  of  Thomas  Love  Peacock  must  needs  be  grateful  to 
Mr  A.  B.  Young  for  his  publication  of  the  unprinted  poem,  Ahrimanes, 
in  the  January  number  of  the  Modern  Language  Review.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  impossible  not  to  regret  that  Mr  Young  did  not  treat  the 
sole  authority  for  the  poem — the  author's  holograph  MS. — with  some- 
what greater  care.  And  as  Mr  Young's  text,  backed  by  the  high 
reputation  of  the  Review,  is  likely  to  mislead  future  critics  and  editors, 
it  will  be  well  to  have  its  more  important  errors  corrected  and  its  chief 
omissions  supplied. 

In  Canto  I,  the  word  which  Mr  Young  could  not  read  in  Stanza  v  is 
'  anarch,'  and  in  Stanza  xxvn  the  word  is  '  Great,'  which  should  be 
followed  by  '  Ahrimane's  '  with  an  apostrophe  before  the  final  '  s.' 

In  Canto  II  Mr  Young  gives  thirteen  stanzas  only,  and  says  nothing 
about  the  fourteenth,  which  he  evidently  overlooked.  Peacock  in  this 
poem  wrote  one  stanza  on  each  side  of  each  sheet  of  paper.  Folio  25  of 
the  MS.  contains  Stanza  xni — given  by  Mr  Young.  Folio  25  verso 
contains  Stanza  XIV.  Folio  26  has  the  heading  '  XV '  for  the  fifteenth 
stanza,  but  no  words.  And  on  folio  26  verso  is  the  beginning  of  that 
prose  outline  of  the  plot  which  Mr  Young  transcribes  (p.  228  of  the 
Revieiu).  His  omission  is  the  more  curious,  as  the  fourteenth  stanza, 
which  is  not  unfinished  or  inferior  to  the  rest,  must  have  been  im- 
mediately before  his  eyes  as  he  transcribed  folio  26  verso  below  it;  since 
the  sheets  on  which  Ahrimanes  is  written  are  only  some  two-thirds  the 
size  of  the  volume  of  MSS.  in  which  they  are  bound  up.  The  omitted 
stanza  runs  as  follows  : 

XIV. 

Far  on  the  left  the  lessening  rocks  recede  : 

A  plain  extends,  a  wide  luxuriant  plain ; 

One  fair  expanse  of  grove  and  flowery  mead, 

And  field,  wide-waving  with  unripened  grain  ; 

Of  industry  arid  peace  the  blest  domain ! 

The  tinkling  sheep-bell  gave  a  pleasant  sound ; 

And  youths  and  maids  were  there,  a  cheerful  train ; 

And  rosy  children  gambolled  on  the  ground, 

Where  peeped  the  cottage  forth  from  many  a  sylvan  mound. 


522  Discussions 

Mr  Young's  verbal  errors  in  Ahrimanes  may  be  given,  with  least 
expenditure  of  space,  in  a  list.  The  Roman  numeral  gives  the  stanza, 
the  Arabic  the  line ;  the  first  word  is  Mr  Young's,  the  second  Peacock's. 

Canto  I,  I  6  cliffs' — cliff's;  vu  2  passed — pressed;  vm  1  music — music's; 
x  4  mossy — massy ;  xiv  9  soon — scorn ;  xx  2  death — dearth ;  xx  8 
fields — field;  xxi  6  peerless — waveless;  xxix  8  a — no;  xxx  1  pale — 
parle ;  xxx  8  lovely — lonely. 

Canto  II,  in  4  poison-clamp — poison-damp ;  in  7  steeds' — steed's  ;  iv  6 
moonlit — moonlight ;  vui  6  mossy — massy.  Also  in  Stanza  xu,  in 
the  first  alternative  line  given  in  the  footnote,  '  the  heaven '  should 
read  '  to  heaven.' 

Mr  Young  omits  a  connecting  hyphen  between  the  following  words : 

Canto  I,  vu  4  ever-murmuring;  ix  1  island-bowers;  xxx  2  thickly- 
mantling;  Canto  II,  xu  1  mountain-top;  xu  4  light-trembling; 
and  he  inserts  one  in  Canto  I,  xu  1  between  'barrier'  and  'rock.' 

Stops  should  be  inserted  as  follows,  where  Mr  Young  has  either  the 
wrong  punctuation  or  none  at  all : 

A  comma  after  Canto  I,  II  2  beam;  III  4  Jet-black;  vii  6  around; 

xin  4  task ;  xvi  5  remote  ;  xxv  4  names ;  xxix  1  said ;  xxx  2 

thickly-mantling;   Canto  II,  I  3  man;   I  6  hymn;   I  8  displays; 

in  7  swords ;  vi  8  suffice ;  vm  7  groves ;  x  6  free ;  xin  1  expand. 
A  semi-colon  after  xxix  2  amaze. 

A  colon  after  ix  5  knelt ;  Canto  II,  XII  1  mountain-top ;  xu  2  sway. 
A  full  stop  after  vi  2  obeyed;  xin  5  shrine  (before  the  dash);  xv  7  bear; 

Canto  II,  xi  2  suspends. 
A  dash  after  in  9  rise  (deleting  the  period),  and  Canto  II,  in  2  court 

(after  the  comma). 
A  period  supplied  by  Mr  Young  after  xxi  5  '  imprest,'  and  a  dash  after 

'  poison-damp,'  in  Canto  II,  in  4,  should  be  removed. 

Mr  Young  prints,  moreover,  two  verbal  inaccuracies  in  the  course  of 
Peacock's  note  on  the  first  stanza  of  Canto  II — '  form '  for  '  forms,'  and 
'  inquisition  '  for  '  inquisitor ' — and  he  does  not  make  it  clear  that  the 
pencil  erasure  covers  the  last  sentence  only  of  the  note. 

A  list  of  Mr  Young's  oversights  in  the  rough  draft  of  the  poem,  and 
his  errors  in  transcribing  it,  would  occupy  too  much  space.  Of  the 
latter,  perhaps  the  most  curious  are  '  wildish '  for  '  wildest '  (which  he 
tentatively  suggests),  and  'long  species'  and  'applicants'  for  'every 
species '  and  '  suppliants.'  In  his  connecting  remarks,  by  the  way,  on 
page  227  of  the  Review,  he  places  Shelley's  first  meeting  with  Newton 
on  August  5,  1812 — three  months  before  it  actually  took  place. 

The  mistakes  and  omissions  in  Mr  Young's  text  of  poem  and  draft 
speak  for  themselves.  It  may  seem,  however,  that  I  have  been  over 
nice  in  giving  so  long  a  list  of  mis-punctuations  in  his  version  of  the 


Discussions  523 

former.  I  can  only  urge  that  the  MS.  of  Ahrimanes  is  a  fair  copy,  and 
finished  so  far  as  it  extends  ;  and  that  I  have  corrected  Mr  Young's 
errors  only  where  they  had  a  distinctly  bad  influence  upon  either  the 
sense  or  the  run  of  the  poem.  Had  I  included  also  those  deviations 
which,  though  they  are  to  be  deprecated  in  a  presumably  faithful  text, 
do  not  actually  stultify  the  author's  intention,  the  list  would  have  been 
greatly  swelled.  I  have  passed  over  also  Mr  Young's  minor  divergencies 
in  spelling,  and  his  somewhat  autocratic  treatment  of  Peacock's  text  in 
the  ignoring  of  occasional  interesting  variae  lectiones. 

One  other  omission,  however,  seems  to  call  for  rectification. 
Mr  Young  does  not  even  mention  the  quotations  which  Peacock  — 
a  man  of  very  wide  classical  scholarship  —  prefixed  to  each  canto  of 
Ahrimanes  by  way  of  motto.  He  gives  indeed  Peacock's  following 
translation  of  the  four  lines  of  Sophocles  which  head  the  first  canto, 
but  no  indication  of  their  source:  and  the  quotation,  as  I  shall  presently 
show,  has  a  double  interest,  since  it  explains  an  allusion  in  Peacock's 
Memoirs  of  Shelley,  and  at  the  same  time  narrows  the  scope  for  the 
date  of  Ahrimanes.  The  lines  of  Sophocles,  which  I  find  in  O.C.  1225, 
run  as  follows  : 

MH  4>YNAI  TOV  diravra  VIKO.  Xoyov  • 

TO  8'  frrti  4>avU 
[Brjvai   Keidev   o&fv    irep   //Ket, 
BfVTfpov,  o>s  ra^tora. 


Now  in  Peacock's  account  of  Shelley's  separation  from  his  first  wife, 
he  describes  very  vividly  the  distracted  state  in  which  he  found  the 
poet,  upon  visiting  him  in  London  : 

Between  his  old  feelings  towards  Harriet,  from  whom  he  was  not  then  separated, 
and  his  new  passion  for  Mary,  he  showed  in  his  looks,  in  his  gestures,  in  his  speech, 
the  state  of  a  mind  '  suffering,  like  a  little  kingdom,  the  nature  of  an  insurrection.' 
His  eyes  were  bloodshot,  his  hair  and  dress  disordered.  He  caught  up  a  bottle  of 
laudanum,  and  said  :  '  I  never  part  from  this.'  He  added  :  '  I  am  always  repeating 
to  myself  your  lines  from  Sophocles  : 

Man's  happiest  lot  is  not  to  be  : 

And  when  we  tread  life's  thorny  steep, 
'Most  blest  are  they,  who  earliest  free 
Descend  to  death's  eternal  sleep.' 

This  interview  may  be  placed  with  most  probability  towards  the  end 
of  June,  1814  —  Shelley  left  England  with  Mary  Godwin  on  July  28  — 
and  it  suggests  a  reasonable  and  probable  date  for  Peacock's  poem. 
Mr  Young  has  shown  that  Ahrimanes  was  the  outcome  of  Peacock's 
intercourse  with  Newton,  whom  he  met  first  during  a  visit  to  Shelley 
at  Bracknell  in  1813.  Shelley,  certainly  before  the  end  of  July  in  the 
following  year,  quotes  with  appreciation  the  rendering  of  Sophocles 
which  Peacock  prefixed,  along  with  the  original,  to  the  poem  which 
owed  its  subject  to  Newton.  It  is  therefore  at  least  a  very  probable 
conclusion  that  Peacock  had  written,  and  shown  to  Shelley,  the  first 
canto  of  Ahrimanes,  either  in  1813,  or  early  in  the  following  year.  And 


524  Discussions 

the  probability  gains  some  small  amount  of  support  from  the  familiarity 
with  the  subject  of  the  poem  which  is  implied  in  a  passage  of  one  of 
Shelley's  letters  to  Peacock,  written  from  Chamouni  on  July  24,  1816 : 

Do  you,  who  assert  the  supremacy  of  Ahriman,  imagine  him  throned  among 
these  desolating  snows,  among  these  palaces  of  death  and  frost,  so  sculptured  in 
this  their  terrible  magnificence  by  the  adamantine  hand  of  necessity,  and  that  he 
casts  around  him,  as  the  first  essays  of  his  final  usurpation,  avalanches,  torrents, 
rocks,  and  thunders,  and  above  all  these  deadly  glaciers,  at  once  the  proof  and 
symbols  of  his  reign  ? 

The  second  canto  of  the  poem  was  also  introduced  by  quotations : 
two  from  Homer,  both  of  which  are  struck  out,  and  two  others : 

AXXaXais  XaXeovri  rtov  yap.ov  at  Kwapio-croi.       GEOKPITO2. 

and 

Tempestates,  venteique  sequuntur, 
Altitonans  Voltumus,  et  Auster  flumine  pollens.         LUCRETIUS. 

These  passages  I  find  in  Theocritus,  xxvn  57,  and  Lucretius,  v  745 ; 
and  the  rejected  ones  in  the  Iliad,  v  89 — 92,  and  xxn  126 — 8. 

Finally,  in  considering  the  theme  of  Ahrimanes,  it  is  not  without 
interest  that  Peacock  wrote  in  a  fair  hand  at  the  beginning  of  the 
poem,  just  above  the  verses  of  Sophocles,  the  sentence  'The  devil  is 
come  upon  the  earth  with  great  power ' — a  statement  which  recalls  his 
effective  repetition,  in  the  mouth  of  the  Manichaean  Millenarian  of 
Nightmare  Abbey,  of  Rev.,  xii  12,  '  Woe  to  the  inhabiters  of  the  earth 
and  of  the  sea !  for  the  devil  is  come  down  unto  you  (Peacock :  among 
you),  having  great  wrath,  because  he  knoweth  that  he  hath  but  a  short 
time.'  Nor  is  this  jthe  only  connection  between  poem  and  novel. 
Newton's  zodiacal  system,  at  first  deemed  worthy  of  poetic  treatment, 
soon  sank  in  Peacock's  mind  to  the  level  of  an  amusing  fad;  and  it 
seems  tolerably  certain  that  the  ichthyologist,  Mr  Asterias,  of  Nightmare 
Abbey,  father  of  Aquarius  and  enthusiastic  fisher  of  mermaids,  owes  his 
being,  and  his  views  on  aqueous  origins  and  Hindoo  theology,  to  the 
fountain  of  which  Ahrimanes  was  an  earlier  and  less  troubled  spring. 

H.  F.  B.  BRETT-SMITH. 
OXFORD. 


REVIEWS. 

Chaucer  and  his  England.     By  G.  G.  COULTON.     London :  Methuen  & 
Co.,  1908.     xii  +  321  pp. 

Mr  Coulton's  book  on  Chaucer  and  his  time  is  much  less  entertaining 
than  his  former  volume  From  St  Francis  to  Dante,  but  it  is  happily  free 
from  the  controversial  spirit  with  which  that  book  is  pervaded.  It  is 
pleasantly  enough  written,  and  displays  a  competent  knowledge  of  the 
state  of  society  in  the  fourteenth  century,  though  it  can  hardly  be  said 
to  throw  much  new  light  upon  Chaucer.  The  chief  fault  of  the  book  is 
one  of  construction :  the  two  parts  of  which  it  is  composed  are  almost 
independent  of  one  another.  Chaucer's  life  and  works  are  dealt  with  in 
the  former  half,  and  the  conditions  of  English  society  in  the  fourteenth 
century  in  the  latter;  but  the  bearing  of  the  last  chapters  lies  in  their 
application,  and  this  is  not  supplied  by  the  author.  The  chapters  on 
Marriage,  The  Gay  Science,  The  Great  War,  The  Poor,  Merry  England, 
The  King's  Peace,  Priests  and  People,  and.  so  on,  form  a  series  of  essays 
which  may  be  interesting  in  themselves,  but  in  which  Chaucer  practically 
plays  no  part,  except  such  as  is  suggested  by  the  question  (or  is  it  an 
exclamation  ?)  in  the  chapter  on  The  Poor,  '  How  many  such  cottages 
did  Chaucer,  like  ourselves,  pass  on  his  ride  to  Canterbury  ? '  The  life 
of  Chaucer  is  told  in  a  readable  manner,  and  the  latest  authorities  are 
utilised.  It  is  a  pity,  however,  that  the  author  should  adopt  the  eight- 
year  love-affair  as  a  biographical  fact,  and  still  more  that  he  should 
repeat  the  suggestion  that  the  poet  was  restrained'  by  the  influence  of 
his  wife,  while  she  lived,  from  indulging  his  taste  for  indelicate  stories. 
We  have  had  too  many  of  these  quite  baseless  and  highly  improbable 
conjectures.  Equally  unlikely  is  it  that  Chaucer  passed  at  any  time 
through  '  an  intense  religious  crisis/  and  that  his  occasional  approaches 
to  mockery  indicate  a  reaction  from  this.  Again,  there  is  no  probability 
in  the  conjecture  that  Ralph  Strode  was  the  author  of  Pearl,  though 
two  eminent  scholars  have  disputed  with  one  another  for  the  credit  of 
suggesting  it. 

Mr  Coulton  '  has  not  hesitated,  in  a  book  intended  for  the  general 
public,  to  modernize  Chaucer's  spelling';  but  this  is  a  thing  about 
which  he  ought  to  have  had  some  hesitation,  seeing  that  it  has  the 
effect  of  destroying  to  a  great  extent  the  character  of  the  verse.  It  is 
true  that  he  preserves  the  final  '  e '  when  it  is  required  for  the  metre  in 


526  Reviews 

the  body  of  the  verse,  but  he  sacrifices  it  ruthlessly  at  the  end,  and 
Chaucer's  verse  reduced  almost  to  a  monotony  of  masculine  terminations 
has  a  very  different  run  from  that  which  the  author  intended,  and  differs 
very  widely  from  that  of  his  Italian  models.  The  passage  of  fourteen 
lines  quoted  on  p.  45  had  originally  eleven  double  endings,  of  which  all 
but  two  are  lost  in  Mr  Coulton's  text,  and  in  addition  one  rhyme  is 
altogether  destroyed  by  the  alteration  of  'wighte'  to  'weight.'  Moreover 
the  metrical  structure  of  the  passage  is  obscured  by  the  fact  that  two 
distinct  stanzas  are  here  given  without  any  visible  separation  between 
them,  a  method  which  is  also  followed  elsewhere,  e.g.,  on  p.  102. 

Where  Mr  Coulton  does  best  is  in  his  endeavour  to  make  Chaucer's 
daily  life  real  to  us  by  such  careful  details  as  those  which  he  gives  in 
reference  to  Aldgate  tower,  where  Chaucer  resided  for  several  years,  and 
the  London  Custom-house,  where  he  worked ;  and  in  his  explanation  of 
the  course  of  politics  as  bearing  on  Chaucer's  fortunes.  The  account  of 
the  '  inspection  and  description '  of  the  future  Queen  Philippa,  when  a 
child,  quoted  from  the  official  register  of  Bishop  Stapledon  of  Exeter,  is 
a  document  of  considerable  interest ;  and  we  must  thank  Mr  Coulton 
also  for  the  illustrations,  especially  the  beautiful  pictures  from  the 
Louterell  Psalter,  and  the  amusing  scene  of  the  '  hostelry  at  night '  on 
p.  139.  The  painfully  modern  photographs  of  Westminster  Abbey  and 
Westminster  Hall  might  with  advantage  have  been  omitted. 

G.  C.  MACAULAY. 

CAMBRIDGE. 


Chaucer.  A  Bibliographical  Manual.  By  ELEANOR  PRESCOTT 
HAMMOND.  New  York:  The  Macmillan  Company,  1908.  8vo. 
x  +  579  pp. 

This  book  is  another  evidence  of  the  fruitful  interest  taken  in 
Chaucer  studies  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  Chaucer  students 
on  this  side  will  welcome  it  as  an  indispensable  aid.  A  marvellous 
amount  of  care  and  labour  must  have  been  spent  upon  it  by  its  author, 
and  yet  the  result  is  by  no  means  of  the  dry-as-dust  order.  The 
immense  collection  of  facts  and  references  is  illuminated  throughout  by 
criticism,  which  is  at  once  sober  and  interesting,  so  that  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  the  book  is  called  a  bibliographical  manual,  it  proves  to  be 
thoroughly  readable.  We  may  fairly  say  that  no  such  conspectus  of 
the  materials  for  Chaucer  study  has  ever  been  presented  before,  and 
Miss  Hammond  is  to  be  congratulated  both  on  her  choice  of  subject 
and  on  the  manner  in  which  she  has  executed  her  work.  The  chief 
fault  to  be  found  with  it  is  that  there  is  a  certain  disproportion  in  her 
treatment  of  the  various  branches  of  the  subject.  For  the  most  part 
she  reports  progress,  setting  before  us  the  actual  results  attained  and 
the  process  by  which  they  have  been  reached,  with  brief  but  apt  com- 
ment and  criticism.  Sometimes,  however,  where  it  appears  to  the 
author  that  a  subject  has  not  been  satisfactorily  worked  out,  or  where 


Reviews  527 

it  has  especially  engaged  her  own  attention,  she  launches  forth  into  an 
original  contribution  of  considerable  length,  which  may  be  full  of  interest, 
but  would  have  been  more  in  place  elsewhere.  Thus  the  arrangement 
of  the  Canterbury  Tales  is  discussed  in  great  detail,  and  an  elaborate 
theory  is  proposed  with  regard  to  it,  for  which  the  author  alone  is 
responsible,  and  which  involves  a  number  of  highly  speculative  assump- 
tions, while  Troilus  and  the  Legend  of  Good  Women  are  treated  of  with 
comparative  brevity.  The  same  criticism  applies,  more  or  less,  to  the 
discussion  on  metric,  but  here  the  author  is  on  firmer  ground,  and  her 
conclusions  are  less  disputable.  However,  we  must  not  be  ungrateful. 
Miss  Hammond  has  merely  given  us  more  than  she  promised :  the 
bibliographical  details  are  never  neglected,  an  extraordinary  store  of 
references  is  accumulated  for  the  assistance  of  the  student,  and  the 
author  usually  displays  a  very  sound  critical  judgment,  guided  by  the 
determination  to  accept  no  results  as  established  unless  satisfactory 
proof  is  forthcoming. 

The  work  consists  of  seven  sections :  (i)  The  Life  of  Chaucer,  with 
most  convenient  reprints  of  the  earliest  biographies  by  Leland,  Bale, 
Pits  and  Speght,  and  critical  references  to  the  succeeding  accounts, 
followed  by  a  survey  of  the  modern  investigations  down  to  the  Chaucer 
Society  Life  Records,  (ii)  The  Works  of  Chaucer,  dealing  generally  with 
the  Chaucer  canon,  the  chronology  of  the  accepted  works,  and  the  sources, 
and  concluding  with  a  full  bibliographical  catalogue  of  the  editions  of 
the  collected  works,  (iii)  The  Canterbury  Tales,  dealing  first  generally 
with  the  arrangement  of  the  tales,  then  with  the  manuscripts,  which  are 
for  the  most  part  fully  described,  and  then  with  the  editions.  After 
this  follows  an  original  dissertation  of  considerable  length  on  the  dates 
of  the  separate  tales  and  the  relation  of  each  one  to  the  general  scheme, 
and  finally  the  bibliography  of  each  tale  is  dealt  with  separately, 
(iv)  Works  other  than  the  Canterbury  Tales,  dealt  with  in  alphabetical 
order,  (v)  Spurious  or  doubtful  works,  (vi)  Linguistics  and  versifica- 
tion, with  interesting  contributions  by  the  author,  especially  on  the 
subject  of  the  verse,  (vii)  A  descriptive  account,  with  a  view  principally 
to  American  students,  of  the  principal  libraries  in  which  Chaucer  MSS. 
are  found,  a  review  of  the  work  of  some  Chaucer  students,  from  Shirley 
to  Furnivall,  a  list  of  the  publications  of  the  Chaucer  Society,  and  a 
general  reference  list  of  the  writers,  books  and  journals  most  frequently 
referred  to. 

It  will  readily  be  seen  how  exceedingly  useful  such  a  work,  executed 
with  accuracy  and  sound  judgment,  must  be  to  students.  A  few  points 
of  detail  suggest  themselves  for  criticism. 

P.  94.  On  the  Lollius  question  Miss  Hammond  seems  to  accept 
what  is  really  much  the  least  acceptable  of  all  the  theories  proposed, 
namely  that  Chaucer  did  not  know  the  name  of  the  author  of  Filostrato. 
It  is  surely  far  more  probable  that  the  use  of  the  name  in  Troilus  is  a 
mere  mystification,  not  for  the  purpose  primarily  of  concealing  literary 
obligation,  but  in  order  to  avoid  the  indecency  of  citing  a  contemporary 
modern  author  as  sole  authority  for  the  truth  of  a  supposed  classical 


528  Reviews 

story.  Reference  to  some  authority  was  evidently  desirable,  and  it  was 
impossible  on  such  a  matter  to  adduce  merely  the  name  of  Boccaccio, 
without  suggesting  the  fictitious  character  of  the  whole  story.  Chaucer 
has  no  difficulty  in  citing  the  authority  of  Dante  for  the  tale  of  Ugolino, 
or  of  Petrarch  for  the  Clerk's  Tale ;  but  when  he  needs  an  authority  for 
the  story  of  Troilus  he  has  to  invent  one,  and  he  uses  Lollius  to  cover 
contributions  both  from  Boccaccio  and  from  Petrarch.  This  is  very 
simple  and  very  intelligible,  and  does  not  imply  any  mean  motive  or 
any  impossible  kind  of  ignorance.  The  only  difficulty  is  as  to  the  rela- 
tion between  the  reference  to  Lollius  in  Troilus  and  the  mention  of  him 
in  The  Hous  of  Fame. 

P.  251.  With  regard  to  the  argument  founded  on  the  two  transla- 
tions of  'pernicious  alis,'  the  author  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  in 
Troilus  Chaucer  is  following  not  Virgil  but  Boccaccio,  who  has  '  prestis- 
sime  ale,'  which  Chaucer  translates  '  presto  winges.' 

P.  374.  In  the  discussion  of  'Daunt  in  English,'  while  rightly 
disabling  Lydgate's  critical  power,  Miss  Hammond  has  neglected  to 
observe  that  he  seems  to  be  quoting  some  expression  used  by  Chaucer 
himself.  '  Daunt  in  English,  himself  doth  so  expresse,'  may  mean 
'  Dante  in  English,  as  he  himself  calls  it.'  It  is  true  that  no  such 
appellation  of  any  of  Chaucer's  works  is  recorded  in  the  MSS.,  but 
Lydgate  may  have  found  it  somewhere  as  a  half-humorous  description 
of  the  Hous  of  Fame  on  the  strength  of  its  invocations.  However,  the 
application  of  the  description  to  this  poem  must  be  regarded  as  very 
doubtful. 

P.  486.  It  is  a  pity  that  one  of  the  few  quite  intolerably  bad  lines 
in  Chaucer,  '  But  thou  wys,  thou  wost,  thou  mayst,  thou  art  al,'  should 
be  selected  as  a  normal  specimen  of  his  metre,  especially  considering 
the  lightness  and  beauty  of  the  Italian  line  which  is  set  by  its  side, 
'Tu  savio,  tu  amico,  tu  sai  tutto.' 

P.  487.  The  line  of  Dante  should  of  course  be  '  Lo  giorno  se 
n'  andava,  e  1'  aer  bruno.' 

P.  499.  Is  not  Miss  Hammond  wrong  about  the  scansion  of  the  line 
of  Milton  ?  It  is  printed  in  the  original  editions,  '  Created  hugest  that 
swim  th'  Ocean  stream,'  and  though  the  indication  of  the  apostrophe 
in  these  cases  is  not  always  trustworthy,  yet  here  it  suggests  what  is 
probably  the  correct  reading  of  the  line. 

Finally  we  feel  disposed  to  plead  for  a  more  careful  use  by  English 
scholars  of  English  words  in  their  proper  meaning.  Chatterton's  language 
cannot  properly  be  said  to  be  'presumably  archaic';  'ostensibly'  is  surely 
the  right  word.  We  are  told  that  Professor  Lounsbury  '  disavows '  a 
certain  statement,  when  the  meaning  is  simply  that  he  denies  it ;  and 
that  the  Clerk's  Tale  must  '  postdate  1373,'  when  the  meaning  is  that 
it  must  have  been  written  at  a  later  date  than  this.  Again  'geometrical 
progression'  means  something  quite  different  from  that  which  the 
author  intends  to  convey  by  the  phrase  as  used  on  p.  71,  nor  is 
'  rendition '  the  same  as  '  rendering,'  though  perhaps  it  may  be  justified 
by  American  usage. 


Reviews  529 

But  we  do  not  wish  to  take  leave  of  Miss  Hammond  in  a  tone  of 
fault-finding.  Her  work  on  the  whole  is  admirably  conceived  and 
excellently  performed,  and  it  cannot  fail  to  further  the  interests  of 
the  study  to  which  she  has  devoted  herself. 

G.  C.  MACAULAY. 

CAMBRIDGE. 


The  Complete  Poetical  Works  of  Edmund  Spenser.  Cambridge  Edition. 
By  R.  E.  NEIL  DODGE.  Boston,  Mass.,  U.S.A. :  Houghton,  Minim 
Co.,  1908.  8vo.  xxiii  +  852  pp. 

Readers  of  Spenser  should  welcome  this  excellent  edition  for  its 
large  type,  exceptionally  accurate  text1,  catalogue  of  persons,  places,  etc., 
'  in  or  connected  with '  The  Faerie  Queene,  and  ample  glossary  with 
precise  references.  In  these  respects  it  is  a  substantial  advance  on 
previous  editions.  Particulars  more  open  to  question  are:  (1)  the 
relegation  of  much  glossarial  matter  to  the  notes,  though  the  resulting 
inconvenience  to  the  'general  reader'  is  partly  compensated  by  the 
advantage  of  having  a  purer  list  of  Spenser's  archaisms ;  (2)  the  placing 
of  the  Complaints  (publ.  1591)  before  The  Faerie  Queene  (publ.  1590 
and  1596).  This  is  due  to  the  prevalent  view  that  the  Complaints  are 
largely  a  reworking  of  earlier  material  (see  p.  57  *) — a  consideration 
which  applies  with  equal  propriety  to  no  small  part  of  The  Faerie  Queene. 
Prof.  Dodge  thus  departs  from  the  historical  order  of  the  impressions 
produced  by  Spenser  on  the  public.  It  may  be  maintained,  even,  that 
the  Complaints  would  not  have  assumed  their  present  form  had  Burghley 
received  more  favourably  The  Faerie  Queene. 

The  Biographical  Sketch  and  the  critical  discussions  preceding  each 
poem  are,  on  the  whole,  careful,  judicious,  and  well-informed2:  satis- 
factory for  the  purposes  of  a  popular  edition.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
the  editor  chose  to  withhold  the  names  of  scholars  supporting  the  views 
which  he  has  occasion  to  discuss.  The  absence  of  these  creates  an  air 
of  vagueness.  But  this  is  not,  what  is  much  to  be  desired,  an  edition 
of  Spenser  addressed  primarily  to  scholars,  digesting  the  evidence  and 
argument  of  research.  Within  Prof.  Dodge's  space  limits,  discussion  of 
controverted  points,  illustration  of  sources,  and  record  of  more  than  the 
most  important  readings,  were  inadmissible.  Nor  is  there  any  biblio- 
graphy. These  omissions  are  vexatious  to  the  serious  student,  and 
render  it  difficult  to  recognize  the  editor's  contribution  to  critical 
opinion. 

1  The  careful  collation  and  recollation  of  first  editions  is  so  stressed  by  Prof.  Dodge, 
that  one  is  surprised  at  his  statement  in  the  Preface  that  copies  of  the  original  editions  of 
Daphnalda  and  the  Prothalamion  are  not  accessible  in  the  United  States.     Copies  of  both 
may  be  consulted  at  the  Boston  Public  Library. 

2  An  exception  appears  where  Prof.  Dodge  states  (p.  xix)  that  in  1589  :  '  He  [Spenser] 
and  the  old  fame  of  his  Shepherd's  Calendar  were  "quite  forgot".'     This  does  not  accord 
with  Puttenham's  familiar  allusion  and  praise  in  1589  (ed.  Arber's  Reprints,  p.  77),  or 
Webbe's  in  1586  (ed.  Arber,  p.  35). 

M.  L.  K.  IV.  34 


530  Reviews 

One  important  point  on  which  I  differ  from  Prof.  Dodge  is  the  date 
of  Spenser's  departure  from  England  either  shortly  before  or  sometime 
after  the  publication  of  the  Complaints  (159 1)1.  It  has  been  customary, 
and  Prof.  Dodge  adheres  to  the  custom,  to  understand  by  the  'Printer's' 
prefatory  allusion  to  Spenser's  '  departure  over  sea,'  his  departure  sub- 
sequent to  receiving  his  grant  of  a  pension  in  February,  1591.  The 
objections  are:  (1)  we  have  no  other  evidence  that  Spenser  had  departed; 
(2)  the  departure  is  not  distinguished  as  his  late  departure  by  contrast 
with  his  departure  in  1580;  (3)  the  context  becomes  implausible  if  a 
recent  departure  is  assumed.  The  '  Printer '  declares  that  the  poems 
composing  the  Complaints  '  were  disperst  abroad  in  sundrie  hands ;  and 
not  easie  to  bee  come  by,  by  [the  poet]  himselfe ;  some  of  them  having 
been  diverslie  imbeziled  and  purloyned  from  him,  since  his  departure 
over  sea/  Diverse  imbezzlings,  purloinings,  communication  between 
author  and  printer,  the  author's  vain  attempt  and  the  printer's  successful 
attempt  at  collection,  imply  a  passage  of  time  befitting  an  allusion  to 
1580,  but  inapplicable  to  a  departure  shortly  before  publication.  More- 
over, according  to  Prof.  Dodge  (p.  58 J)  the  collection  had  been  made, 
and  '  the  copy  must  have  been  at  least  approximately  complete,'  before 
Spenser  can  have  left  London,  since  it  was  entered  in  the  Stationers' 
Register  under  December  29,  1590.  The  'Printer,'  therefore,  alludes 
to  Spenser's  departure  in  1580. 

Prof.  Dodge  seeks  to  escape  this  conclusion  by  holding  (I  think 
rightly)  that  this  address  of  The  Printer  to  the  Gentle  Reader  is  a 
subterfuge  inspired  by  the  poet  himself.  If  so,  whether  Spenser's 
motive  was  diffidence  (as  suggested  by  Prof.  Dodge,  p.  58 J)  or  a  desire 
to  shield  himself  from  counter-attack2,  his  disingenuousness  would  make 
him  wish  to  seem  plausible.  He  would,  therefore,  allude  to  his  departure 
of  1580,  and  not  to  his  departure  which,  on  this  hypothesis,  was  yet  to 
take  place. 

We  have,  therefore,  no  evidence  that  Spenser  left  London  until  after 
the  publication  of  the  Complaints.  Indeed,  having  avoided  responsibility, 
he  might  wish  to  enjoy  his  triumph.  Again,  his  grant  of  Kilcolman 
was  not  secured  till  October  26,  1591,  and  business  connected  with  this 
is  not  unlikely  to  have  kept  him  in  London.  Finally,  he  dates  the 
dedicatory  letter  prefixed  to  Daphnaida,  at  London,  January  1,  1591 
(modern  style  1592).  Prof.  Dodge,  in  common  with  previous  editors 

1  See  Spenser's  Dating  of  Colin  Clout.    N.Y.  Nation,  Nov.,  1906.     Prof.  Dodge  alludes 
to  this  (p.  6782). 

2  The  unlikelihood  that  Spenser  did  not  keep,  or  could  not  procure,  copies  of  these 
poems,  dedicated  to  his  relatives  or  most  intimate  patrons,  satirizing  his  chief  enemy 
(Burghley),  circulating  at  most  in  a  limited  group  of  court  folk — and  yet  that  a  printer 
could  obtain  them — is  very  great.     It  is  heightened  by  the  representation  of  the  '  Printer ' 
that  Spenser,  though  present  in  London,  had  no  hand  in  the  publication.     The  inference, 
that  this  is  a  subterfuge,  is  made  probable  by  the  circumstance  that  the  Complaints  are 
largely  complaints  against  Burghley.    Personal  malice  could-  not  be  urged  against  or  visited 
upon  the  'Printer,'  while  these  indiscretions  of  the  author  would  appear  to  have  been 
'purloined'  (not  circulated  at  his  wish),  and  no  longer  'easie  to  bee  come  by.'     In  this 
contingency,  Spenser  would  wish  them  to  appear  to  be  juvenile  indiscretions,  and  would 
therefore  refer  to  his  departure  in  1580. 


Reviews  531 

and  biographers,  explains  this  as  a  mistake  or  exceptional  following 
of  continental  usage,  claiming  that  Spenser  meant  1591,  modern  style. 
The  assumption  is  made  to  avoid  two  seeming  difficulties :  one  created 
by  the  dating  of  Colin  Clout  (see  note  1,  above),  the  other  by  the  date 
of  Daphne's  death  (August,  1590).  This,  too,  is  easily  met,  for  the 
dedicatory  letter  need  not  date  from  the  first  completion  of  the  poem1. 
An  assumption  that  the  poem  circulated  for  a  time  in  manuscript  or 
was  written  toward  the  end  of  1591,  involves  less  difficulty  than  to 
suppose  it  ready  for  publication  on  January  1,  1591 :  for  in  that  case 
it  should  have  formed  a  very  appropriate  part  of  the  Complaints. 

•  PERCY  W.  LONG. 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  U.S.A. 


Die  Inszenierung  des  deutschen  Dramas  an  der  Wende  des  sechzehnten 
und  siebzehnten  Jahrhunderts.  Von  C.  H.  KAULFUSS-DiESCH. 
(Probefahrten,  vil.)  Leipzig:  Voigtlander,  1905.  8vo.  viii 
+  236  pp. 

Many  problems  of  interest  to  the  student  of  the  drama  have  arisen 
in  connection  with  the  appearance  of  English  players  in  Germany  in 
the  sixteenth  century ;  none  are,  however,  of  greater  interest  just  at 
present  than  that  connected  with  the  stage  itself,  especially  as  during 
the  last  few  years  the  contemporary  English  stage  has  been  the  subject 
of  numerous  monographs2.  The  present  volume  offers  a  thorough 
investigation  on  this  question — the  mise  en  seine  of  the  English 
Comedians.  The  author  has,  moreover,  undertaken  his  task  with  an 
extensive  knowledge  of  the  German  stage  prior  to  the  arrival  of  the 
English  players:  indeed,  his  introductory  paragraphs  on  the  stage  of 
the  medieval  drama,  the  shrove-tide,  school,  and  master-singer  plays 
may  be  pronounced  without  hesitation  the  best  concise  treatment 
of  the  subject.  And  regarding  the  stage-setting  of  the  plays  of  the 
English  Comedians  and  of  Herzog  Heinrich  Julius  of  Braunschweig,  he 
has  brought  forward  much  new  and  valuable  material  and  has  also 
admirably  arranged  the  old,  especially  in  those  paragraphs  that  deal 
with  the  actors  and  the  acting.  With  the  actual  staging  of  the  plays, 
however,  he  has  not  been,  as  I  believe,  so  successful. 

That  the  English  Comedians  brought  with  them  what  was  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  the  Shakespearean  stage  is  the  current  opinion. 
But  many  matters  of  detail  relating  to  this  are  still,  and  perhaps  always 
will  be,  the  subject  of  controversy.  According  to  our  best  present 

1  Spenser's  explanation  in  this  letter  of  '  the  occasion  why  I  wrote  the  same  [poem] ' 
appears  to  connote  a  lapse  of  time. 

2  Cf.  William  Archer  in  the  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  208,  p.  442,  where  a  discussion  and 
criticism  of  six  recent  publications  on  the  Elizabethan  stage  (1901-1907),  and  the  announce- 
ment of  a  seventh,  which  has  since  appeared  in  part,  is  to  be  found. 

34—2 


532  Reviews 

knowledge  the  '  public '  playhouses  of  Elizabethan  London  were  fairly 
complex  affairs.  Is  it  probable  that  these  wandering  actors  whom 
Fynes  Moryson,  after  seeing  them  perform  at  Frankfurt  a.M.,  called 
'our  cast  despised  Stage  players1,'  should  take  with  them  any  great 
number  of  stage  properties  ?  Indeed  the  case  of  poor  Richard  Jones 
who  was  obliged  to  beg  the  money  to  get  '  a  sute  of  clothes  and  a 
cloke '  out  of  pawn  is  well  known.  Would  they  not  rather  make  use 
of  the  stage  of  the  English  players  when  touring  the  provinces  ?  But 
of  this  or  even  of  the  stage  of  the  '  private '  London  theatres  we  know 
practically  nothing.  That  these  were  more  primitive  and  decidedly 
simpler  is  about  all  that  we  can  affirm.  Toward  this  view  we  have, 
indeed,  for  Germany  some  evidence,  and  again  it  is  Fynes  Moryson 
who,  in  the  same  paragraph  from  which  the.  above  was  quoted,  speaks 
of  these  English  actors  '  at  Franckford  in  the  tyme  of  the  Mart,  hauing 
nether  a  Complete  number  of  Actours,  nor  any  good  Apparell,  nor  any 
ornament  of  the  Stage! 

This  whole  question  is  not  touched  upon  by  Diesch,  for  whom  the 
Elizabethan  stage  is  the  stage  of  the  'public'  theatres.  His  authorities 
are  the  publications  of  Gaedertz,  Brandl  and  especially  the  dissertation 
of  Cecil  Brodmeier:  Die  Shakespeare- Buhne  nach  den  alien  Buhnen- 
anweisungen,  Weimar,  1904.  He  accepts  apparently  the  so-called  alter- 
nation theory,  although  for  this  I  am  not  able  to  point  to  any  definite 
statement.  In  one  important  respect,  however,  Diesch  differs  from 
Brodmeier.  He  does  not  find,  in  the  extant  plays  of  the  English 
Comedians,  the  least  evidence  of  a  curtain,  temporarily  shutting  off  a 
part  of  the  stage,  and  from  this  argues  that  the  Elizabethan  stage 
also  possessed  none.  The  presence  of  a  curtain,  or  better  of  curtains, 
is,  however,  now  a  recognized  fact.  In  view  of  the  material  at  hand 
it  would  almost  appear  that  Diesch  feared  to  admit  the  possibility 
of  what  is,  after  all,  a  very  considerable  difference  in  the  two  stages. 
I  would  rather  believe  that,  as  the  '  corridor '  or  '  alcove '  (i.e.,  the 
comparatively  small  space  enclosed  entirely  or  in  part  by  curtains)  was 
at  best  very  dark  and  by  no  means  necessary  for  all  plays,  the  English 
players  in  Germany  omitted  it  entirely  as  an  unnecessary  detail.  Their 
audience  was  quite  content  to  watch,  for  example,  the  preparations 
required  for  a  banquet ;  indeed  from  the  number  of  times  which  this 
particular  scene  appears  in  the  few  texts  we  have,  it  evidently  appealed 
to  the  popular  taste. 

With  Brodmeier  Diesch  divides  his  stage  into  three  parts — a  front 
stage  without  decoration,  representing  an  indefinite  locality,  such  as  a 
street ;  a  somewhat  smaller  rear  stage  with  properties,  representing  a 
definite  place,  such  as  a  room ;  and  an  upper  stage  or  balcony.  Regard- 
ing the  front  and  rear  stages  he  admits,  however  (p.  64) :  '  die  beiden 
Buhnenfelder  sind  durchaus  nicht  streng  geschieden.  Sie  konnen 
ineinander  iibergehen  und  so  zur  Neutralbiihne  werden.'  Entire  acts 

1  The  reference  from  Moryson  is  quoted  by  Charles  Harris :  Publications  of  the  Modern 
Language  Association  of  America,     Vol.  xxn,  p.  446. 


Reviews  533 

or  even  series  of  acts  (in  the  Fortunatus  of  the  1620  Collection1  the 
first  three)  he  assigns  to  this  neutral  stage. 

The  occasional  use  of  an  upper  stage  or  balcony  by  the  English 
Comedians  has  long  been  recognized.  Mettenleiter's  description  of 
Spencer's  stage  in  Regensburg  (Diesch,  p.  59)  certainly  provides  for 
such  an  upper  stage;  stage  directions  of  Titus  Andronicus  in  the  1620 
Collection,  which  agree  surprisingly  with  Shakespeare's,  references  and 
stage  directions  in  the  plays  of  Heinrich  Julius  and  Jakob  Ayrer 
prescribe  it.  Whether,  as  Diesch  surmises,  the  balcony  was  also  used 
for  the  fairly  frequent  '  Geistererscheinungen '  and  for  the  orchestra, 
which  played  a  very  important  part  in  these  pieces,  is,  to  say  the  least, 
doubtful.  The  evidence  for  the  division  into  front  and  rear  stage  must, 
however,  be  examined.  What  has  been  called  '  the  only  obvious  test 
of  a  rear  stage  scene,'  the  use  of  a  curtain,  is  not  to  be  found.  Metten- 
leiter's description  (Diesch,  p.  59)  of  the  Regensburg  stage,  on  which 
he  (p.  77)  would  not  lay  much  weight,  is  too  indefinite  to  base 
conclusions  upon.  We  are  left  to  the  texts  themselves. 

'  Der  beste  Beweis  fur  die  Trennung  von  Hinterbtihne  und  Vorder- 
blihne '  Diesch  (p.  63)  finds  in  the  third  act  of  Esther  in  the  1620 
Collection  (Tittmann,  p.  33  ff.) :  'Hainan  kompt  mit  dem  Knapkase 
Zimmermann.'  He  orders  Knapkase :  '  bawe  mir  einen  Galgen  in 
meinem  Hofe,  50.  Elen  hoch.'  Knapkase  takes  the  measure  of  the 
gallows  from  Haman  himself,  who  finally  becomes  angry:  'Ziehet  sein 
Gewehr.  Er  (i.e.,  Knapkase)  Idufft.  Gehen  hinein.' 

The  king  now  enters  with  a  servant  who  reads  to  him  in  the 
Chronica  of  Mardocheus'  action  in  saving  the  king's  life.  He  asks 
what  has  been  done  to  honour  this  man,  the  servant  replies,  nothing. 

Konig.    Nichts?  das  ist  uns  leyd:  Sag  wer  1st  dar  im  Hofe? 

Diener.    Grossmachtigster  Konig,  es  ist  Haman,  der  lest  sich  ein  Galgen  bawen. 

Konig.     Lass  ihn  bald  zu  uns  herein  kommen.     Holet  ihn. 

Diesch  (p.  63)  comments :  '  Wahrenddem  (i.e.,  while  the  servant  is 
reading  to  the  king  on  the  rear  stage),  so  miissen  wir  annehmen,  ist 
Haman  mit  Hans  Knapkase  wieder  auf  die  Vorderblihne  erschienen, 
wo  Hans  den  bestellten  Galgen  aufstellt.  Der  Konig  fragt :  "  Wer  ist 
dar  im  Hofe?"  Diener:  "Grosser  Konig,  es  ist  Haman,  der  lasst  sich 
einen  Galgen  bauen."  Es  geht  zwar  aus  dieser  Stelle  nicht  mit 
absoluter  Sicherheit  hervor,  dass  die  Erbauung  des  Galgens  vor  den 
Augen  des  Publicums  geschieht ;  indessen  gehen  wir  wonl  in  unserer 
Annahme  nicht  fehl,  da  ja  der  Galgen  im  nachsten  Akte  tatsachlich 

1  Engelische  Comedien  und  Tragedien,  etc.,  appearing  1620  in  a  first,  1624  in  a  second 
edition.  The  plays  are  for  the  most  part  accessible  in  the  collections  of  Tittmann:  Die 
Scliauspirle  der  englischen  Komodianten,  Vol.  xin  of  Goedeke  und  Tittmann :  Deutsche 
Dichter  des  16.  Jahrhunderts,  and  Creizenach:  Die  'Schauspiele  der  englischen  Komodianten, 
Vol.  23  of  Kiirschner:  Deutsche  Nationalliteratur.  In  the  following  quotations  I  give 
page  references  to  Tittmann  or  Creizenach,  the  text  itself,  however,  according  to  the 
copy  of  the  1620  Collection  in  the  British  Museum.  An  exact  reprint  of  this,  as  also  of  the 
1630  Collection,  Liebeskampff,  is  much  to  be  desired.  Tittmann,  especially,  gives  a 
greatly  modernized  text. 


534  Reviews 

benutzt  wird 1st  unsere  Annahme  richtig,  so  ist  sie  der  beste  Beweis 

fur  die  Trennung  von  Hinterbiihne  und  Vorderbiihne.' 

But  is  not  this  entirely  begging  the  question  ?  Diesch  places  the 
scenes  arbitrarily  on  the  front  and  rear  stage,  doing  violence  to  the 
text,  which  clearly  states  that  Haman  and  Knapkase  exeunt  (Gehen 
hinein)  before  the  entrance  of  the  king  with  his  servant,  and  then 
claims  this  as  best  proof  for  the  division  into  front  and  rear  stage  scenes. 

In  support  of  his  preconceived  theory  Diesch  often  leaves  in  the 
reader's  mind  an  entirely  false  impression.  A  good  example  in  question 
is  the  following,  taken  from  the  fourth  act  of  Titus  Andronicus  in 
the  1620  Collection.  Diesch  (p.  73)  writes:  'Im  vierteu  Akte  wird 
Titus  veranlasst,  sich  die  Hand  abzuhauen,  um  das  Leben  seiner  Sohne 
zu  retten  (auf  der  Vorderbiihne) ;  Helicates  und  Sophonus,  die  beiden 
Sohne  der  Kaiserin,  fiihren  auf  der  Hinterbiihne  die  geschandete  und 
verstiimmelte  Andronica  herein,  wo  sie  ihr  Bruder1  Victoriades  findet 
und  in  seinen  Schutz  nimmt,  und  auf  der  Vorderbiihne  erscheint  wieder 
Titus  Andronicus ;  hier  werden  ihm  die  abgeschlagenen  Haupter  seiner 
beiden  Sohne  gebracht,  und  Victoriades  fuhrt  ihm  die  ungliickliche 
Andronica  zu.' 

From  reading  this  description  one  receives  the  impression  that  for 
some  of  the  action  at  least  both  the  front  and  rear  divisions  of  the 
stage  are  in  use  at  the  same  time,  which  is  not  at  all  in  accord  with 
the  actual,  very  definite,  directions  of  the  text.  For  after  Andronicus 
has  cut  off  his  hand,  the  stage  direction  reads  (Creizenach,  p.  31  ff.) : 
'Gehen  zusammen  hinein.'  The  stage  is  empty.  'Jetzt  kompt  herauss 
Helicates  und  Saphonus'  with  the  mutilated  Andronica.  The  two 

brothers  '  Gehen  weg.     Andronica  bleibet  alleine Nicht  lange  darnach 

kompt... Victoriades.'  She  would  run  from  him  and  hide — 'leuffet  sie 
ins  Holtz.'  But  Victoriades  '  leufft  hinein,  holet  sie  wiederumb  herauss.' 
He  expresses  his  pity  and  bids  her:  '0  kom  mit  mir,  du  solt  hie  nicht 
bleiben.  Gehet  hinein.'  Evidently  both  go  out  and  the  stage  is  again 
empty.  'Nun  kompt  herauss  Titus  Andronicus,  Vespasianus,  alsbald 
kompt  der  Morian,  bringet  die  beiden  Haupter  und  die  Handt.'  Morian 
exits,  Titus  calls  down  the  vengeance  of  the  gods  upon  his  adversaries. 
'Jetzt  kompt  Victoriades,  bringet  die  Andronica.' 

One  sees  how  carefully  the  German  adaptor  avoids  just  what  Diesch 
desires  to  find — the  simultaneous  use  of  two  parts  of  the  stage,  repre- 
senting different  localities.  In  fact  one  only  needs  to  read  the  texts 
themselves  to  become  convinced  that  the  compiler  of  the  1620  Collection, 
at  least,  never  thought  of  any  distinct  division  into  front  and  rear  stage. 
Very  instructive  in  this  respect  is  a  series  of  short  scenes  in  the  third 
act  of  Esther  (Tittmann,  p.  29  ff.),  where,  however,  even  Diesch  must 
admit  (p.  62):  'Der  Verfasser  war  anscheinend  der  Situation  nicht 
mehr  gewachsen  und  kehrte  deshalb  zu  dem  einfachen  Prinzip  der 
Neutralbiihne  zuriick.' 

1  The  text  of  the  1620  Collection  is  here  corrupt — it  reads  Vate,  Creizenach  conjectures 
Vetter;  &  simpler  conjecture  would  appear  to  me  Pate;  Bruder  is  quite  impossible. 


Reviews  535 

We  cannot  follow  Diesch's  argument  in  full — he  analyses  with  more 
or  less  detail  seven  plays  of  the  1620  Collection — these  examples  must 
suffice.  Is,  however,  the  case  of  Heinrich  Julius  different,  whom  Diesch 
(p.  107)  calls  'der  einzige  deutsche  Dramendichter,  der  die  englische 
Biihne  bewusst  und  in  vollem  Umfange  iibernahm'?  Eugen  Kilian, 
who  reviewed  Diesch's  publication1,  evidently  thinks  so.  He  writes 
(Studien,  p.  144) :  '  Weit  eher  als  bei  den  englischen  Komb'dianten 
konnte  man  sich  bei  den  Stiicken  des  Herzogs  Heinrich  Julius  von 
Braunschweig. ..mit  der  von  Diesch  vertretenen  Annahme  einer  grund- 
satzlichen  Teilung  des  Buhnenfeldes  befreunden.'  As  '  kraftigste 
Stiitze'  he  regards  a  passage  in  the  tragedy  Von  dem  ungeratenen 
Sohn.  We  find  in  the  fifth  scene  of  the  third  act  of  this  piece  a  passage 
(Diesch,  p.  87):  'welche  fur  die  Beschaffenheit  der  Biihne  des  Herzogs 
den  untrtiglichen  Schliissel  abgibt.  Die  Szene  spielt  im  Holze ;  Nero 
und  seine  beiden  Mordgesellen  Seditiosus  und  Hypocrita  verschworen 
sich  gegen  das  Leben  des  alten  Herzogs.  Hier  sagt  nun  die  Biihnen- 
anweisung :  "  Die  beiden  gehen  ab.  Nero  gehet  aus  dem  Holtze,  und 
kompt  wider  auff  die  Brucken."  Aus  dieser  Stelle  geht  die  prinzipielle 
Teilung  des  Btihnenfeldes  in  Vorderbtihne  und  Hinterbilhne  deutlich 
hervor.' 

There  is,  however,  one  difficulty  with  this  explanation.  This  play 
offers,  as  Diesch  readily  admits,  almost  insurmountable  difficulties  in 
the  staging.  He  gives  then  an  arrangement  which  seems  to  him  to 
have  '  die  grosste  Wahrscheinlichkeit  fur  sich.'  In  this  he  places  woods 
and  garden,  both  being  necessary,  side  by  side  at  the  very  back  of  the 
rear  stage.  He  admits  this  to  be  merely  a  possible  solution,  but  there- 
upon promptly  uses  this  hypothesis  to  prove  his  point :  the  woods  are 
perhaps  to  be  located  at  the  rear  of  the  stage,  Nero  comes  from  the 
woods  '  auf  die  Briicke,'  he  must  then  come  from  the  rear  to  the  front, 
consequently  the  stage  is  to  be  divided  into  two  parts,  a  front  and  a 
rear  stage.  It  is  the  same  method  of  proof  which  was  used  in  the  case 
of  the  plays  of  the  English  Comedians  themselves.  That  the  actors 
played  both  on  the  front  and  rear  of  the  stage  goes  without  saying,  but 
that  there  was  any  definite  division  into  front  and  rear  stage,  either  in 
the  plays  of  the  English  Comedians  or  of  Heinrich  Julius  has  still  to 
be  shown ;  Diesch  has  not  introduced  any  evidence  that  is  in  the  least 
convincing. 

Also  in  many  points  of  detail  I  would  differ  from  Diesch.  To 
mention  a  few:  on  p.  79  he  claims:  'Die  Vorderbiihne  war  im  englischen 
Theater  von  der  Hinterbuhne  dadurch  scharf  unterschieden,  dass  die 
letztere  durch  ein  Dach  geschlitzt  war,  welches  der  Vorderbiihne  fehlte.' 
This  is,  however,  in  itself  very  doubtful  and  only  to  be  granted  if  we 
accept  the  theory  ,that  the  curtains  shut  off  everything  behind  the 
pillars.  This  same  arrangement  Diesch  then  reads  into  the  very  vague 
descriptions  of  the  stages  at  Regensburg  and  Cassel,  and  conjectures  a 
similar  arrangement  for  all  the  larger  stages  of  the  English  Comedians 

1  Studien  zur  vergleichenden  Literaturgeschichte,  vn,  138  ff. 


536  Reviews 

in  Germany.  In  other  cases — private  houses,  castles,  etc. — he  would 
have  the  rear  stage  surrounded  with  curtains.  The  only  evidence  he 
can  produce  for  this  (Der  bestrafte  Brudermord,  which  he  introduces, 
is  inadmissible  because  of  the  late  date  of  the  text)  is  to  be  found  in 
the  play  Von  dem  verlornen  Sohn  (Tittmann,  p.  66  f.).  The  Prodigal 
enters  in  beggar's  clothing,  he  bewails  his  misery,  for  three  days  he  has 
not  eaten.  'Hie  wil  ich  vor  diese  Thiir  gehn  und  bitten.  Ach  mein 
guter  frommer  Herr  ich  bitt,  erbarmet  euch  uber  mich  unnd  theilet 
mir  mit  ein  Allmosen — Es  antwortet  ihm  einer  unter  den  Tapetichten.' 
Three  times  he  approaches  a  door  and  each  time  he  is  refused,  although 
there  is  no  further  mention  of  tapestries. 

It  would  not  seem  possible  on  such  meagre  evidence  to  assert  that 
the  rear  stage  was  surrounded  by  tapestries ;  I  am  inclined  to  believe 
that  the  'Tapetichte'  were  the  curtains  hung  before  the  entrances,  of 
which  we  find  evidence  in  Jakob  Ayrer  and  the  earlier  Terence 
stage. 

Nor  is  the  case  of  the  galleries  with  which  Diesch  surrounds  the 
rear  stage  on  three  sides,  with  entrances  directly  upon  the  front  stage  — 
a  slight  modification  of  Brodmeier's  arrangement  for  the  Elizabethan 
stage — different.  These  he  finds  again  in  the  description  of  the 
Regensburg  stage  (p.  59),  where,  however,  there  is  absolutely  no  word 
of  anything  of  the  kind,  and  in  the  petition  of  Green,  Danzig,  1615, 
where  the  word  Gallerey  refers  only  to  arrangements  for  seating  the 
audience.  He  claims  (p.  83) :  '  Die  Seiteneingange  sind  ausdriicklich 
vorgeschrieben  im  Konigssohn  von  England'  (Tittmann,  p.  218),  where 
the  stage  direction  in  question  reads :  (the  king)  '  Gehet  hinein,  ko'mpt 
auff  der  andern  Seiten  wieder!  I  can  picture  the  scene  perfectly  well, 
including  the  following  entrance  of  the  magician,  with  three  back 
entrances  or  even  two.  Side  entrances  are  not  necessary,  and  certainly 
not  prescribed. 

In  fact,  the  back  entrances  seem  to  have  occasioned  Diesch  un- 
necessary trouble.  In  the  plays  in  question  he  finds  but  one  absolutely 
necessary,  but  '  aus  Grunden  der  Symmetric '  (p.  82)  he  provides  his 
stage  with  two.  Surely,  however,  at  least  two  entrances  are  called  for 
by  the  1608  Graz  text  of  Niemand  und  Jemand1,  where  we  read 
(Bischoff,  p.  177):  'Hie  khombt  aus  ein  Thor  Cornuel,  zum  andern  Thor 
begegent  ihm  Morganus,'  or  '  Hie  fchomen  Martianus  und  Malgo  zu  unter- 
schidlichen  Thorn  aus.'  I  imagine,  however,  that  the  actual  number  of 
entrances  depended  to  a  very  great  extent  upon  other  conditions  and 
that  no  precise  number  can  be  given. 

It  is  just  in  this  respect  that  Diesch  lays  himself  open  to  severest 
criticism.  He  starts  with  a  preconceived,  and  in  many  details  false, 
notion  of  the  Elizabethan  stage.  On  to  this  stage  he  forces  the  plays 
of  the  English  Comedians,  although  in  support  of  his  theory  he  is  often 
obliged  to  resort  to  conjecture  and  to  an  unwarranted  interpretation 
of  the  text.  To  local  conditions,  which  undoubtedly  played  a  most 

1  Edited  by  Bischoff :  Mitteilungen  des  historischen  Vereins  fur  Steiermark,  1899. 


Reviews  537 

important  part  in  the  stage  arrangements  of  these  wandering  actors, 
he  allows  little  or  no  room1. 

M.  BLAKEMORE  EVANS. 

MADISON,  WISCONSIN,  U.S.A. 


Goethe  und  die  Seinen.  Quellenmdssige  Darstellungen  uber  Goethes 
Haus.  Von  LUDWIG  GEIGER.  Leipzig:  R.  Voigtlander.  1908. 
8vo.  374  pp. 

In  the  preface  to  this  book  the  author  explains  what  he  wishes  to 
be  understood  under  the  somewhat  ambiguous  term  '  die  Seinen ' :  '  Es 
ist  die  Welt,  die  ihn  nach  Begriindung  seines  Heines  umgab,  es  sind  die 
Bewohner  seines  Hauses,  die  Mitglieder  des  kleinen  vertrauten  Kreises, 
der  taglich,  ja  stiindlich  um  ihn  war,'  or,  in  other  words,  Goethe's  'Familie 
der  freien  Wahl.'  A  good  deal  has  already  been  written  on  this  subject, 
and  monographs  exist  on  most  of  the  members  of  Goethe's  household,  but 
Professor  Geiger  claims  for  his  book  that  it  is  the  first  in  which  the 
42  volumes  of  letters,  the  13  volumes  of  diary  and  the  10  volumes  of 
conversations  have  been  so  freely  used,  and  given  such  a  prominent 
place  in  the  foreground. 

The  work  falls  into  several  sections.  The  first  of  these  is  devoted 
to  '  Die  Gattin,'  whose  history  is  traced  from  the  day  she  first  met 
Goethe  in  the  park  at  Weimar  in  1788,  till  her  death  in  1816.  This  is 
by  no  means  the  first  attempt  to  vindicate  Christiane's  character  from 
the  aspersions  cast  upon  it  by  the  indignant  '  Weimarerinnen ' ;  but  by 
the  juxtaposition  of  the  various  poems,  letters  and  reports  having 
reference  to  Goethe's  life-companion,  we  "get  a  clear  and  illuminating 
view  of  the  'dicke  Ehehalfte,'  as  Charlotte  von  Schiller  was  wont  to 
call  her.  Professor  Geiger,  in  passing  a  final  judgment,  does  not  commit 
himself  further  than  to  describe  their  union  as  one  'dass  unsere  Teilnahme 
fordert  und  unsere  Achtung,'  but  he  closes  the  section  with  the  words  of 
Frau  von  Knebel,  who,  in  a  very  impartial  description  of  Christiane's 
character,  declares  '  dass  Goethe  nach  seiner  Eigenttimlichkeit  nie  eine 
passendere  Frau  fiir  sich  hatte  finden  konnen.' 

Section  II  is  devoted  to  August,  Ottilie  and  'die  Enkel.'  A  full 
account  of  August  von  Goethe's  melancholy  existence  has  not  yet  been 
written,  and  the  67  pages  devoted  to  Goethe's  son  in  this  part  of  the 
book  will  be  welcome  to  all  who  wish  to  become  better  acquainted  with 
Goethe's  family  circle.  The  details  of  his  early  life  and  his  official 
career,  though  in  themselves  of  no  intrinsic  interest,  shew  how  harmful 

1  It  should  be  added  that  there  are  a  rather  large  number  of  simple  printer's  errors  in 
Diesch's  publication,  also' a  few  of  a  somewhat  more  serious  nature.  Of  this  second  class 
I  note  the  following:  p.  77,  first  line  of  the  paragraph,  for  'Spencers  Niirnberger  Biihne' 
read  '  Spencers  Regensburger  Biihne';  p.  81,  four  lines  from  top,  for  '  V.  B. '  (Vorderbiihne) 
read  'H.  B.'  (Hinterbiihne).  Most  troublesome,  however,  is  the  error,  p.  58,  in  the  first 
line  of  the  quotation  from  Duncker ;  for  '  Au  devant  du  Paris'  read  '  Au  devant  du  Palais.' 
The  reference  to  Deutsche  Rundschau  is  here  also  wrongly  given ;  for  '48,  S.  219  ff.'  read 
,'48,  S.  260  ff.' 


538  Reviews 

to  his  character  and  development  generally  was  the  unsystematic  and 
disconnected  method  which  his  father  followed  with  regard  to  his 
education  and  upbringing.  And  yet  the  fact  that  his  life  was  not  an 
even  greater  failure  is  probably  due  to  the  almost  fanatical  love  of 
order  which  he  certainly  inherited  from  his  father,  and  which  the  elder 
Goeth6  constantly  encouraged  and  demanded,  even  to  the  detriment  of 
other  and  more  valuable  faculties.  As  regards  his  character  and  his 
personal  relations  to  his  father,  Professor  Geiger's  view  differs  somewhat 
both  from  that  of  Karl  von  Holtei,  who  represents  his  friend  as  gifted 
but  without  character,  and  from  that  held  by  another  of  August's 
contemporaries,  whose  account  of  Goethe's  son  is  one  of  the  few  trust- 
worthy documents  on  this  subject  that  we  possess.  According  to  Jenny 
von  Pappenheim,  August  Goethe  was  a  man  of  good  abilities  and  amiable 
disposition,  whose  one  misfortune  was  to  be  the  son  of  his  father :  '  die 
Nahe  des  Vaters  floh  er,  weil  die  forschenden  Blicke,  die  unausge- 
sprochenen  Anklagen  ihn  einschlichterten.  So  kam  es,  dass  er,  der 
sonst  so  Frohliche,  sich  in  den  Raumen  Goethe's  am  liebsten  stumm 
und  missmuthig  in  die  Ecken  driickte,'  etc.  (Lily  Braun,  Im  Schatten 
der  Titanen,  p.  123f.).  Dr  Geiger,  on  the  other  hand,  lays  considerable 
weight  on  the  evidence  we  possess  to  shew  that  August  was  kept  closely 
in  touch  with  his  father's  intellectual  life,  that  he  became  indispensable 
to  his  father's  activity,  and  that  even  their  collaboration  on  purely 
business  and  official  matters  bore  a  more  intimate  and  personal  character 
than  has  generally  been  assumed.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that 
in  the  documents  he  adduces,  the  impression  one  gains  is  not  that  of 
intense  filial  or  parental  affection,  but  rather  of  dry  business  transactions 
between  two  men  in  their  official  capacity.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to 
Goethe's  affection  for  his  son,  however  disappointed  he  may  have  been 
in  his  subsequent  development;  but  even  Professor  Geiger  is  forced 
to  admit  in  the  end  that  'Der  Fluch  seines  Lebens  war... das  nieder- 
druckende  Gefiihl :  Goethes  Sohn  zu  sein.' 

In  his  treatment  of  Ottilie,  Dr  Geiger  errs  perhaps  on  the  side  of 
being  too  severe.  He  comments  on  the  fact  that,  after  August's  death, 
the  intimacy  between  father-  and  daughter-in-law,  at  first  so  great, 
seemed  to  diminish ;  and  he  attributes  this  to  Ottilie's  '  grobe  Vernach- 
lassigung  der  Pflichten  einer  Hausfrau.'  He  laments  that  she  should 
have  understood  so  little  how  to  brighten  the  declining  years  of  the 
aged  poet  and  should  have  forced  on  him  the  burden  of  duties  which 
properly  fell  in  her  own  province.  But  here  again  we  have  a  more 
sympathetic  picture  from  the  hand  of  her  friend  Jenny  von  Pappenheim. 
From  this  we  learn  that  Ottilie,  after  August's  death,  daily  devoted  six 
hours  of  her  time  to  her  father-in-law ;  to  quote  her  own  words,  as 
reported  and  later  corroborated  by  her  friend :  'oft  kann  ich  nicht  mehr 
und  glaube  ohnmachtig  zu  werden  vor  Schwache,  doch  der  Gedanke 
dass  ich  ihm  niitzlich,  ihm  nothwendig  bin,  dass  ich  seine  alten  Tage 
verschonern  und  in  der  Welt  zu  etwas  gut  sein  kann,  dieser  Gedanke 
giebt  mir  die  Krafte  wieder.  Neulich  haben  wir  den  Plutarch  zu  lesen 
angefangen,  und  schliesslich  las  er  mir  aus  dem  zweiten  Teil  des  Faust ; 


Reviews  539 

es  war  schon  und  gross,  als  ich  aber  nach  11  Uhr  mein  Zimmer  betrat, 
fiel  ich  meiner  Lange  nach  zu  Boden'  (Im  Schatten  der  Titanen,  p.  119). 
Of  course  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  Ottilie  was  frivolous  even  to 
excess ;  but  when,  speaking  of  her  life,  Dr  Geiger  says :  '  Es  ist  nicht 
das  Leben  einer  Mutter,  die  sich  der  Pflichten  gegen  ihre  Kinder  be- 
wusst  ist,  und  noch  weniger  das  einer  Frau,  die  den  gefeiertsten  Naraen 
Deutschlands  tragt ;  man  ist  manchmal  versucht,  an  eine  Abenteurerin 
zu  denken,  die  in  der  Welt  herumzieht  und  jede  ihrer  Launen  befriedigt,' 
and  then  produces  some  contemporary  gossip  to  justify  his  hard  words 
about  her,  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  he  does  gross  injustice  to 
Ottilie  and  that,  overlooking  the  good  points  in  her  '  problematische 
Natur,'  he  unduly  accentuates  the  less  pleasing  ones. 

The  account  of  the  two  sons  and  their  somewhat  misguided  attitude 
towards  their  grandfather's  inheritance  is  of  great  interest,  and  the 
description  of  the  author's  unsuccessful  interview  with  these  two  jealous 
guardians  of  the  family  treasure  is  clearly  characteristic  of  their 
behaviour  towards  even  the  most  serious  and  conscientious  of  Goethe- 
students.  We  get  a  clear  idea  of  the  curious  blight  which  seemed 
to  lie  over  the  lives  of  these  two  not  ungiffced  men,  whose  melancholy 
existence  is  only  illuminated  by  the  generosity  with  which,  at  the  close 
of  their  lives,  they  handed  over  the  incomparable  gift  of  all  the  family 
treasures  and  archives  for  the  use  of  the  German  nation. 

The  Section  devoted  to  '  Haus  und  Hausverwandte '  is  perhaps  the 
part  of  the  book  which  presents  least  interest  to  the  general  reader. 
Goethe's  relations  to  his  coachmen,  his  cooks,  and  other  domestics  are 
illustrated  from  notes  of  his  Tageblicher  and  correspondence.  His 
transactions  with  the  actors  and  actresses  at  the  Weimar  theatre  are 
discussed.  Finally  Goethe's  friends,  more  particularly  those  of  his  later 
years,  are  presented  to  us.  Schiller  is  intentionally  left  on  one  side ; 
Meyer  and  Zelter  are  sympathetically  characterized,  and  finally,  as 
'  untergeordnete  Hausgenossen,'  Riemer  and  Eckermann.  The  Kanzler 
v.  M  tiller,  as  usual  with  Goethe's  biographers,  comes  off  very  badly: 
'  Kein  Umgang,  der  eines  Goethe  wiirdig  war.'  Dr  Geiger  does  not 
even  do  him  the  justice  of  quoting  him  absolutely  correctly  on  p.  173, 
where  a  very  slight  inaccuracy  causes  the  chancellor's  words  to  produce 
a  more  unpleasing  impression  than  they  do  as  they  stand  in  the 
original  (cf.  Unterhaltungen  mit  dem  Kanzler  von  Muller,  ed.  Cotta, 
p.  183).  It  is,  moreover,  scarcely  fair  to  insist  on  the  unworthy 
manner  in  which  he  acted  with  regard  to  Goethe's  '  Nachlass,'  and  to 
omit  to  mention  at  the  same  time  the  many  difficulties  of  the  work 
he  undertook,  as  well  as  the  thanklessness  of  his  task,  owing  to  the 
attitude  taken  up  by  the  rightful  heirs. 

JESSIE  CROSLAND. 

LONDON. 


540  Reviews 


La    Rhyihmique    Musicale    des    Troubadours    et    des    Trouveres.      Par 
PIERRE  AUBRY.     Paris:  A.  Picard,  1907.    4to.     67  pp. 

Die  Melodien  der  Troubadours.    Von  J.  B.  BECK.    Strassburg :  Triibner, 
1908.     4to.     viii  +  202  pp. 

The  object  of  the  first  of  these  books  is  to  show  the  incorrectness  of 
Hugo  Riemann's  system  of  interpreting  the  melodies  of  the  trobadors  and 
trouveres  and  to  prove  the  author's  own  hypothesis  that  these  melodies, 
though  they  are  not  written  in  mensural  notation,  belong  to  the  ars 
menstirabilis  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

According  to  Riemann,  the  rules  for  the  measuring  of  music,  which 
were  laid  down  by  the  mediaeval  theorists,  applied  only  to  music  written 
in  several  parts,  and  the  rhythm  of  the  trobadors'  melodies  depended 
entirely  on  the  structure  of  the  verse,  each  syllable  being  sung  to  a 
note  or  group  of  notes  of  equal  time- value.  The  task  of  transcribing 
the  old  melodies  into  modern  notation  becomes  a  very  simple  one  if 
Riemann's  method  is  employed,  but  there  is  no  reason  for  believing 
that  the  musical  rhythm  of  the  songs  was  anything  like  what  he 
supposes,  for  the  known  facts  concerning  the  music  of  the  Middle  Ages 
give  no  indication  of  such  a  rhythm  ever  having  been  employed. 
Riemann's  system  of  interpreting  the  melodies  is  indeed  an  invention 
of  his  own. 

M.  Aubry  on  the  other  hand  arrives  at  his  conclusion  after  studying 
the  rules  of  the  mediaeval  theorists,  examining  MSS.  which  contain 
two-part  music  (which  was  undoubtedly  measured)  as  well  as  melodies, 
all  the  music  being  written  according  to  the  same  system  of  notation, 
and  comparing  MSS.  which  contain  the  same  songs,  written  in  mensural 
notation  in  one  MS.  and  not  in  the  other.  The  conclusion  which  he 
draws  after  a  logical  examination  of  all  the  facts  is  that  the  melodies 
should  be  measured  according  to  the  system  of  modal  formulae,  of  which 
frequent  mention  is  made  by  the  old  theorists.  The  musical  modes 
resemble  classical  metres,  the  first  three,  the  most  often  used,  corres- 
ponding to  the  trochaic,  iambic  and  dactylic.  M.  Aubry  gives  a 
number  of  examples  of  songs  from  MSS.  not  written  in  mensural  nota- 
tion, which  he  transcribes  according  to  the  modal  interpretation,  and 
the  results  are  very  satisfactory  as  regards  the  music  itself  and  the 
rhythm  and  meaning  of  the  words. 

M.  Aubry  has  always  maintained  that  the  melodies  of  the  trobadors 
and  trouveres  should  be  interpreted  mensurally,  but  in  the  present 
work,  as  he  admits  himself,  he  departs  considerably  from  his  former 
method  of  interpretation.  He  formerly  believed  that  the  Old  French 
and  Proven9al  chansonniers,  such  as  Paris  Bib.  Nat.  844  fonds  fr., 
22543  fonds  fr.,  Arsenal  5198,  etc.,  were  actually  written  in  mensural 
notation.  A  further  study  of  the  MSS.  and  of  the  history  of  mensural 
notation  has  led  him  to  discard  this  belief,  and  in  the  present  volume 
he  sets  forth  a  method  of  interpretation  for  which  it  may  be  claimed 
that  it  is  at  once  the  most  satisfying  and  the  most  reasonable  that  has 


Reviews  541 

yet  been  suggested.  M.  Aubry  has  the  gift  of  being  able  to  write  on  a 
thoroughly  technical  subject  in  really  good  prose,  and  the  clearness  and 
ease  of  his  style  help  his  readers  to  follow  his  arguments  without 
difficulty.  That  we  are  convinced  by  them  is  due  to  the  solid  facts 
on  which  he  bases  them. 

It  is  strange  that  during  all  the  time  that  has  elapsed  since  the 
revival  of  interest  in  the  poetry  of  the  trobadors  which  started  about 
a  hundred  years  ago,  scarcely  any  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  music 
of  the  songs.  Words  and  music  were  inseparable  in  Provencal  lyrics, 
the  two  halves  which  made  up  the  whole  of  the  song.  The  fact  that 
the  songs  which  survive  in  their  complete  form  are  very  much  less 
numerous  than  those  the  words  only  of  which  are  in  existence  is  surely 
no  reason  for  not  studying  those  melodies  which  do  exist.  The  musical 
branch  of  the  art  of  the  trobadors  was,  nevertheless,  almost  entirely 
ignored  until  a  few  years  ago.  For  some  time  past  it  has  been  studied 
by  MM.  P.  Aubry,  H.  Riemann  and  A.  Restori,  but  the  first  complete 
general  survey  of  the  subject  is  contained  in  the  book  by  Dr  J.  B.  Beck 
now  before  us.  The  value  of  Dr  Beck's  book  to  all  students  of  trobador 
literature  can  scarcely  be  overestimated,  and  it  should  do  much  to  give  to 
the  study  of  the  music  that  prominence  which  has  hitherto  been  denied 
it.  A  description  of  the  contents  of  this  volume  will  give  some  idea  of  the 
thoroughness  and  care  with  which  Dr  Beck  has  worked  at  his  subject. 
The  first  part  contains  a  list  and  description  of  all  MSS.  containing 
trobador  melodies,  a  complete  list,  arranged  in  alphabetical  order,  of  the 
existing  songs  with  music,  with  an  indication  of  the  MS.  or  MSS.  in 
which  they  may  be  found,  notes  on  this  list,  and  a  description  of  the 
notation  in  which  the  melodies  are  written  in  the  MSS.  with  many 
examples.  This  part  concludes  with  a  survey  of  the  different  views  of 
modern  students,  especially  MM.  Aubry  and  Riemann,  as  to  the  proper 
method  of  interpreting  the  melodies  of  the  trobadors.  The  second  part 
consists  in  an  exposition  of  the  writer's  theory  as  to  the  original  rhythm 
of  the  songs  and  the  correct  way  in  which  to  transcribe  the  melodies, 
with  many  examples  in  the  original  and  in  modern  notations.  The 
work  is  not  yet  complete  ;  Dr  Beck  announces  that  he  hopes  shortly  to 
publish  the  entire  collection  of  all  known  trobador  melodies.  When 
this  collection  appears,  it  and  the  present  volume  will  form  a  most 
important  contribution  to  the  study  of  mediaeval  Prove^al  literature. 

The  first  part  of  the  present  volume  needs  no  special  discussion. 
Dr  Beck's  theory  as  to  the  proper  method  of  interpreting  the  original 
notation  of  the  MSS.  and  of  measuring  the  rhythm  of  the  songs  is 
substantially  the  same  as  that  put  forward  by  M.  Aubry  in  the  book 
just  noticed — namely  that  the  actual  notation  employed  gives  no 
indication  of  the  , relative  value  of  the  musical  notes,  but  that  the 
melodies  should  be  interpreted  according  to  the  modal  formulae.  It  is 
clear  that  this  part  of  Dr  Beck's  work  was  written  before  the  appearance 
of  M.  Aubry's  book,  for  he  nowhere  alludes  to  the  latter,  but  makes 
frequent  reference  to  the  erroneous  view  formerly  held  by  M.  Aubry, 
that  the  trobador  melodies  were  written  in  mensural  notation.  No 


542  Reviews 

stronger  argument  in  favour  of  the  modal  system  of  interpretation  could 
be  found  than  the  fact  that  two  such  zealous  and  careful  investigators 
as  M.  Aubry  and  Dr  Beck  should,  independently  of  each  other  and 
treating  the  subject  from  slightly  different  points  of  view,  have  arrived 
at  the  same  conclusion.  Dr  Beck  lays  stress  on  the  importance  of  the 
discovery  of  the  modal  rhythm  in  Proven9al  and  Old  French  songs  as  a 
help  to  the  study  of  Romance  metre.  The  interdependence  of  metre 
and  musical  rhythm  on  each  other  is  a  very  interesting  question. 
Dr  Beck,  while  recognising  the  purely  syllabic  system  of  measurement 
employed  in  Romance  verse,  is  inclined  to  attach  undue  importance  to 
the  tonic  accent  of  Romance  words.  He  describes  the  Second  Mode,  ^  -, 
as  '  der  echt  rornanische  Rhythmus '  because,  though  the  musical  accent 
generally  falls  on  an  atonic  syllable,  the  tonic  syllable  is  compensated  by 
having  a  note  of  double  the  time- value  of  the  accented  note — a  levelling- 
out  of  values  thus  taking  place  which  he  considers  eminently  suitable  to 
the  non-accentuated  character  of  Romance  verse.  It  is  not  very  probable 
that  the  trobadors  were  actuated  by  consideration  of  the  tonic  syllable 
in  words  when  choosing  the  '  modes '  in  which  to  make  their  songs. 
Dr  Beck's  study  of  the  melodic  rhythm  of  the  songs  is  nevertheless  of 
great  interest  and  value.  The  modal  method  of  interpreting  the  music 
will  probably  become  universally  recognised  and  adopted.  Now  that 
Dr  Beck  has  lessened  the  difficulty  of  transcribing  the  melodies,  it  is 
greatly  to  be  hoped  that  all  future  editions  of  trobador  and  trouvere 
poetry  will  contain  melodies  as  well  as  words  when  the  former  exist. 
The  songs  lose  much  of  their  character  when  the  words  only  are  con- 
sidered and  the  aesthetic  value  of  the  melodies  is  quite  great  enough  to 
make  them  worth  consideration.  The  student  of  music  and  the  student 
of  Romance  literature  should  alike  be  grateful  to  Dr  Beck,  for  his  work 
opens  a  new  aspect  on  both  subjects. 

BARBARA  SMYTHE. 
LONDON. 


Grammaire  historique  de  la  langue franpaise.    Par  KR.  NYROP.   Tome  IIL 
Paris:  Picard,  1908.     8vo.     viii  +  459pp. 

Since  the  appearance  of  Darmesteter's  epoch-making  work,  De  la 
creation  actuelle  de  mots  nouveaux  dans  la  langue  franqaise,  in  1877  the 
study  of  the  subject  has  so  widened  that  the  learned  author  of  the 
present  volume  has  found  it  necessary  to  omit  his  promised  study  of 
semantics  altogether,  and  to  reserve  for  it  a  volume  which  we  hope  will 
soon  be  published.  It  is  with  great  regret  that  we  learn  tnat  he  is 
suffering  from  an  affection  of  the  eyes  wfyich  renders  all  reading 
impossible ;  we  sincerely  hope,  however,  that  he  may  be  able  to 
complete  his  volumes  on  semantics  and  syntax,  both  of  which  are  so 
much  to  be  desired.  The  present  work  of  Nyrop  deals  with  the 
methods  of  formation  generally  and  with  those  that  Darmesteter  left 
untouched,  viz.,  regressive  formation,  irregular  formation  and  ono- 
matopoeia. 


Reviews  543 

Though  no  writer  of  the  last  thirty  years  has  proved  so  productive 
of  new  words  as  Balzac,  yet  Zola,  Bourget  and  Anatole  France  all  add 
a  considerable  number  to  the  vocabulary.  The  historique  of  the  neo- 
logism is  clearly  stated,  and  we  find  quoted  a  protest  by  the  late 
academicien  Brunetiere  against  innovations.  This  sturdy  classic  claims 
that  such  should  be  regularly  debarred  unless  they  correspond  to 
realties :  yet  we  must  admit  the  claim  of  a  modern  symbolist  poet  to 
place  his  impress  on  the  language,  as  well  as  that  of  Hugo  to  '  mettre 
un  bonnet  rouge  sur  le  vieux  dictionnaire.'  Nyrop  expresses  sanely 
the  attitude  we  should  adopt  towards  neologisms :  '  Selon  nous,  les 
neologismes  sont  les  resultats  necessaires  et  les  marques  infaillibles 
de  la  vitalite  forte  et  saine  de  la  langue,  ou,  pour  parler  plus  correcte- 
ment,  ils  temoignent  d'une  imagination  poetique  et  plastique  toujours 
en  eveil,  d'efforts  continuels  pour  rendre  1'expression  plus  variee,  plus 
nuancee,  plus  pittoresque.  II  ne  faut  pas  tenter  d'endiguer  le  flot  des 
neologismes :  il  saura  bien  se  regulariser  lui-meme ;  les  mots  mort-nes 
ne  tarderont  pas  a  disparaitre  sous  la  surface  de  1'eau,  les  viables  entreront 
vite  dans  le  grand  courant  de  la  langue  parlee,  qui,  grace  a  ce  surcroit 
constant,  se  rajeunira,  s'embellira  et  sera  de  plus  en  plus  apte  a  exprimer 
les  nuances  infmies  de  la  pensee  humaine.'  The  chapter  on  onoma- 
toposia  strikes  us  as  extremely  interesting  and  original.  Nyrop  points 
out  that  the  names  of  sounds  are  entirely  conventional  and  often  differ 
widely  from  one  country  to  another,  thus  the  noise  made  by  the  duck  is 
represented  in  English  by  '  quack  quack,'  and  in  Denmark  by  '  rap  rap.' 
No  direct  observation  is  brought  into  play:  thus  a  clock  always  says 
'  tic-tac '  or  '  tick-tock,'  and  if  we  try  to  hear  '  tac-tic,'  after  a  second  or 
so  we  shall  again  hear  'tic-tac,'  so  strongly  does  the  force  of  habit 
dominate  the  impression  of  our  ears.  Onomatopoeia  always  offer  a 
series  of  vocalic  modulations  thus :  i  —  a,  i  —  o  or  i  —  a  —  ou  with  fixed 
harmonics ;  the  reason,  though  Nyrop  does  not  note  it,  seems  to  be 
that  the  first  of  a  series  is  always  a  front  vowel  with  a  high  musical 
pitch  with  rapid  return  of  the  tongue  to  the  position  of  rest  or,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  pitch,  a  high  and  then  a  low  pitch  or,  in  the  case 
of  a  series,  from  the  vowel  having  the  highest  to  that  which  has  the 
lowest  musical  pitch.  An  interesting  chapter  of  the  book  is  that  which 
deals  with  the  neologisms  of  politics  and  literature.  Many  of  those 
formed  can  remain  only  as  interesting  examples,  such  as  '  beauperisme,' 
'  henriquinquiste,'  invented  to  describe  the  action  of  President  Grevy's 
son-in-law  Wilson  in  the  sale  of  decorations  and  the  supporters  of  the 
claims  of  the  late  Comte  de  Chambord  (called  Henri  V)  to  the  throne 
of  France,  while  others,  'extreme-oriental,'  ' moyenageux,'  may  be  said 
to  have  received  '  droit  de  cite '  if  not  recognition  by  the  Academic. 

The  study  of  suffixes,  both  Latin  and  French,  gives  proof  of  years  of 
earnest  work,  and  offers  the  most  complete  study  of  the  subject  extant ; 
the  difference  between  those  suffixes  the  activity  of  which  has  ceased 
and  those  which  are  still  living  is  stated  with  the  greatest  clearness, 
e.g.,  -ia  at  the  time  of  Charles  the  Simple  no  longer  served  to  form 
a  compound  '  Normandia '  and  therefore  recourse  had  to  be  had  to  ia 


544  Revieivs 

whence  '  Normandia '  > '  Normandie,'  but  one  cannot  help  thinking  that 
another  explanation  is  possible,  viz.  that  the  new  word- '  Normandie ' 
might  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  '  Norman(d) '  as  '  baronie '  to 
'baron.'  Vast  numbers  of  compounds  have  disappeared  from  the 
language,  thus  out  of  the  numerous  examples  derived  with  the  help 
of  the  suffix  -ison  <  itionem,  only  '  garnison,'  '  guerison '  and  '  trahison ' 
remain.  So  vast  was  the  vocabulary  of  Old  French  that  we  feel  some 
sympathy  with  Gautier,  who  revelled  in  words  as  every  examiner 
knows,  when  he  protests  that  the  Malherbian  reform,  while  it  cleared 
away  many  tares,  yet  destroyed  many  a  golden  ear.  Chapter  V.  dealing 
with  'Mots  composes'  does  not  do  more  than  study  types  and  the 
enquirer  should  turn  to  Darrnesteter's  exhaustive  work  the  Traite  des 
mots  composes  (2nd  edition,  1894).  The  only  addition  we  note  here  is 
'  un  cinq  heures '  (§  720). 

In  some  interesting  additions  the  use  of  initials,  generally  in  pro- 
fessional or  student  slang  only,  to  avoid  a  long  or  clumsy  phrase,  we 
find  the  remark  that  those  in  the  Services  des  Postes,  Telegraphies 
et  Telephones  are  known  as  the  P.T.T.,  it  will  be  of  interest  to  note 
whether  their  recent  strike  will  generalize  this  convenient  abbreviation. 

It  must  be  a  matter  of  great  joy  to  the  learned  professor  to  find  so 
many  devoted  friends  and  pupils  ready  to  undertake  the  routine  work 
of  correcting  and  indexing.  So  devotedly  has  this  been  done  that  we 
are  unable  to  find  an  important  reference  omitted  or  a  false  one  given. 
Praise  from  us  is  needless,  but  we  may  say  that  this  work  increases  the 
debt  of  gratitude  that  students  of  French  owe  to  the  learned  professor 
of  Copenhagen. 

A.  T.  BAKER. 

SHEFFIELD. 


Etude  Scientifique  sur  I' Argot  et  le  Parler  populaire.  L 'argot  fran$ais 
et  etranger  dans  ses  vocabulaires,  ses  origines,  ses  elements  et  son 
interpretation.  Par  RAOUL  DE  LA  GRASSERIE.  Paris :  H.  Daragon, 
1907.  8vo.  179  pp. 

The  plan  adopted  in  this  work  has  been,  first  to  classify  all  forms  of 
parlance  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest ;  and  then  to  characterise  and 
illustrate  by  copious  examples  the  processes  which  have  given  rise  to 
all  below  the  level  of  standard  speech.  'L'espace,'  the  author  aptly 
says,  '  se  divise  entre  les  parlers,  mais  en  couches  horizontals  pour  les 
diverses  classes,  tandis  qu'il  se  divisait  en  tranches  verticales  entre  les 
langues  differentes.'  So  the  various  parlances  take  rank  in  an  order 
descending  with  the  power  of  abstract  expression  possessed  by  each, 
and  consequently  corresponding  roughly  to  a  descent  in  the  social  scale. 
Parlance  not  being  however  exclusively  the  outcome  of  social  conditions, 
the  above  correspondence  is  merely  approximate,  and  'higher'  and 
'  lower '  almost  of  necessity  remain  vague  terms.  '  Ces  etages,'  says  the 
author  in  reference  to  them,  'correspondent  aux  diverses  classes  sociales, 
ainsi  qu'a  la  culture  intellectuelle.' 


Reviews  545 

Both  classifications,  that  of  speech  and  of  its  modes  of  formation,  are 
carried  out  by  the  aid  of  a  carefully  devised  nomenclature.  In  it  'glose' 
means  any  parlance  or  form  of  speech ;  '  orthoglose,'  one  springing  from 
normal  conditions ;  '  paraglose,'  one  acquired  to  suit  new  ones.  So  cant 
or  '  la  langue  verte '  is  an  '  orthoglose ' ;  trade  terms  make  up  a  '  para- 
glose,' the  '  technoglose,'  in  fact ;  whilst  trade  and  professional  slang  are 
classed  under  the  heading  '  ergoglose,'  an  instance  of  the  clearness  of 
the  distinctions  made.  But  the  inclusion  of  dialects  here  is  a  little 
surprising,  the  difference  between  parlance  and  language  having  once 
been  illustrated  by  speaking  of  the  one  as  horizontal  and  the  other  as 
vertical.  Of  course  the  convenience  of  the  author's  arrangement  in 
other  ways  is  sufficiently  obvious.  The  difficulty  conies  in  trying  to 
lose  sight  of  the  difference  between  dialect  and  social  parlance  on  finding 
the  two  thus  classed  together. 

It  is  a  pity  that  good  two  pages  of  an  interesting  introduction  should 
have  been  spent  in  defining  such  words  as  '  intellectuel,'  '  materiel ' ; 
and  in  drawing  a  careful  distinction  between  '  parler '  and  '  langage,' 
which  is  disregarded  in  what  follows.  This  will  probably  not,  as  the 
author  seems  to  hope,  tend  to  popularise  a  piece  of  work  which  is 
essentially  of  a  learned  kind ;  and  ib  merely  leads  to  pitfalls,  in  one  of 
which  his  own  foot  is  unhappily  taken.  '  Ce  qui  est  invisible  et  inaudible 
est,  au  contraire,  immateriel,'  he  says  incautiously.  But  the  following 
two  passages  of  real  importance  are  also  open  to  criticism.  '  Ce  serait 
un  acte  de  volonte  expresse,  or  de  tels  actes  sont  inconnus  du  langage,' 
is  one  ;  '  autrefois,  il  n'y  avait  point  dans  une  langue  ces  diffe"rents  etages  ; 
tout  le  monde  employait  le  parler  devenu  inferieur  depuis,'  is  the  other. 
The  existence  of  the  French  language  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  shew  the 
second  statement  to  be  incorrect  of  classical  times,  nor  is  it  any  more 
applicable  to  the  Middle  Ages  either. 

The  book  suffers  from  one  regrettable  defect.  It  contains  far  too 
many  misprints,  and  some  other  mistakes  which  have  obviously  escaped 
correction.  It  is  perhaps  needless  to  quote  examples.  Of  the  four 
chapters  on  foreign  slang,  the  one  on  English  slang  is  largely  taken 
from  the  Introduction  to  Button's  Slang  Dictionary,  edition  1864. 
But  there  are  errors  here,  e.g.,  '  shree  sheats  in  the  wind '  for  '  three 
sheets  in  the  wind ' ;  '  smelling  chete '  is  incorrectly  glossed  '  grange  ' ; 
'  walking  a  mortes '  should  be  '  walking  mortes ' ;  '  chanut '  should  be 
'  chaunt ' ;  '  boit  of  blood,'  '  bit  of  blood.'  It  is,  too,  hardly  fair,  without 
qualification,  to  charge  the  author  of  the  Slang  Dictionary  with  con- 
founding Slang  and  Cant,  when  he  has  carefully  defined  both.  'Although 
in  the  Introduction,'  he  says,  'I  have  divided  Cant  from  Slang,  and 
treated  the  subject  separately,  yet  in  the  Dictionary  I  have  only,  in 
a  few  instances,  pointed  out  which  are  Slang,  or  which  are  Cant  terms. 
The  task  would  have  been  a  difficult  one.  Many  words  which  were 
once  Cant  are  Slang  now.'  But  M.  de  la  Grasserie  transcribes  Barman's 
1566  list  from  the  same  work,  without  stating  that  the  words  it  contains 
are  sixteenth  century  slang — an  important  omission  with  respect  to  a 
form  of  speech  so  perishable  as  a  non-literary  parlance.  In  this  connec- 

M.  L.  R.  iv.  35 


546  Reviews 

tion  it  may  be  interesting  to  observe  by  the  way,  that  '  s'en  torcher  le 
nez'  (p.  78)  was  good  English  seventeenth  century  slang:  'and  the 
King  own  a  marriage... and  so  wipe  their  noses  of  the  Crown'  (Pepys, 
Diary,  July  17,  1667).  The  references  to  folk-lore  and  proverbs  in 
Ch.  iv.  are  interesting,  and  a  short  chapter  is  devoted  to  proper  names. 
But  it  will  be  for  the  two  able  classifications  referred  to  above  and  for 
the  wealth  of  examples  it  gives,  that  the  book  will  be  chiefly  valued. 

G.  A.  PARRY. 

LONDON. 


Jean  Racine.     Par  JULES   LEMAITRE.      Paris:   Calmann-Levy,   1908. 
8vo.     328  pp. 

Some  apology  is  due  for  the  tardy  notice  in  these  pages  of  such  an 
important  book  as  M.  Lemaitre's  Jean  Racine  which  last  year  charmed 
all  Paris.    The  excuse  we  would  tender  is  one  that  the  author  will  surely 
accept  and  even  commend,  since  it  implies  the  triumph  of  his  art. 
M.  Lemaitre's  pages  compel  you  to  turn  again  to  the  Theatre  of  Racine, 
and  on  that  enchanted  ground  the  voice  of  criticism  is  hushed.     Some- 
thing of  the  same  witchery  is  exercised  by  M.  Lemaitre's  own  work. 
Its  beauty  and  its  skill  dazzle  the  reader  and  conceal  the  defects  of  its 
argumentation.     No  one  of  Racine's  tragedies  can  compare  in  interest, 
as  the  critic  truly  says,  with  the  story  of  his  life.     And  in  handling  this 
theme  M.  Lemaitre  employs  with  consummate  mastery  all  the  qualities 
which  it  demands — learning,  sympathy,  style,  and  a  sense  of  the  dramatic. 
The  result  is  a  book  as  full  of  life  and  interest  as  any  play  or  novel. 
The  tragedy  is  held  together  and  its  action  is  controlled  by  the  domi- 
nating figure  of  Port-Royal,  which  broods  over  the  whole  like  the  Nemesis 
of  ^Eschylus  or  Sophocles.     The  note  is  struck  in  the  first  pages,  where 
we  are  shewn  the  four  Solitaries  passing  in  silence  through  the  streets  of 
La  Feste-Milon,  the  home  of  Racine's  parents  and  his  birthplace  ;  and  it 
sounds  all  through  the  story  till  his  death  and  burial  beside  M.  Hamon, 
the  best-loved  teacher  of  his  childhood.      M.  Lemaitre  sees  that  this 
influence   of  Port-Royal,  begun   before  Racine  was  born  and  always 
surrounding  him,  however  fiercely  for  a  time  he  fought  against  it,  gives 
unity  to  that  agitated  life  with  its  worldly  successes  and  its  moral 
failures,  its  glory  and  its  baseness.     He  does  not,  we  venture  to  think, 
appreciate  Jansenism  at  its  proper  theological  value  nor  see  how  directly  it 
derives  from  St  Paul ;  but  he  thoroughly  understands  its  psychology,  and 
his  picture  of  the  Jansenist  in  his  cell  and  before  the  world  is  a  master- 
piece and  throws  into  high  relief  the  figure  of  the  wayward  youth  who 
owed  so  much  to  Port-Royal  and  profited  so  little  by  the  lessons  of 
unworldliness  which  he  learnt  there.     The  influence  of  the  place  upon 
his  art  (which  is  quite  another  matter)  was  considerable,  and  is  of  course 
duly  noted.     '  L'opinion  de  Port-Royal  sur  la  nature  humaine  se  retrou- 
vera  dans  ses  tragedies;  elle  le  fera  veridique  et  hardi  dans  ses  peintures 
de  Thomme.     Et,  a  cause  de  Port- Royal,  jamais  (sauf  dans  FAlexandre) 


Reviews  547 

il  ne  donnera  dans  1'optimisme  romanesque  des  deux  Corneille  and  de 
Quinault.' 

Enough  has  been  said  in  order  to  illustrate  the  skilful  con- 
struction of  M.  Lemaitre's  study.  But  among  many  instances  of  his 
extraordinary  literary  skill,  one  in  particular  deserve's  to  be  cited,  and 
that  is  the  way  in  which  the  reader's  mind  is  prepared  for  the  appear- 
ance of  Alexander  the  Great  on  the  Racinian  stage.  The  irresistible 
appeal  of  this  romantic  figure  has  never  been  better  described,  and  no 
one  can  fail  now  to  understand  why  in  1665,  the  year  of  the  execrable 
War  of  Devolution  and  five  years  after  the  Spanish  marriage,  Racine 
the  courtier  produced,  and  Louis  the  King  applauded,  the  play  in  which 
the  interest  centres  on  this  '  heros  arnoureux  et  guerrier.' 

It  is  a  thousand  pities  that  M.  Lemaitre's  enthusiasm  for  Racine  has 
led  him  to  be  less  than  fair  to  his  great  rival,  and  indeed  to  anyone  that 
ventured  to  question,  not  his  genius,  but  his  supremacy.  Out  of  a  score 
of  references  to  Pierre  Corneille  there  are  perhaps  two  which  can  be 
twisted  into  a  faint  confession  of  merit ;  while  with  regard  to  Madame 
de  Sevigne,  the  critic  permits  himself  to  use  an  epithet  which  can  only 
be  termed  '  facheux '  (it  is  his  own  word  for  Racine's  action  in  the 
matter  of  his  Alexandre).  He  calls  that  great-hearted  lady  'la  grosse 
Sevigne.'  Such  impertinence  tempers  with  disgust  our  delight  in 
M.  Lemaitre's  prose. 

There  are  certain  passages  which  render  the  book  unsuited  to — let 
us  say,  les  demoiselles  de  St  Cyr — for  instance  the  extremely  ingenious 
and  probably  sound  defence  of  Racine's  youthful  morality.  But  after 
all  it  was  not  written  for  young  people,  and  we  trust  that  it  may  have 
many  English  readers  and  help  to  the  better  understanding  of  a  poet  who 
is  little  understood  by  us.  To  discuss  at  length  the  causes  of  this  want 
of  appreciation  lies  outside  our  present  purpose.  The  general  ground 
is  no  doubt  that  which  Mr  Tilley  has  indicated  in  his  recent  volume 
From  Montaigne  to  Moliere,  viz.,  Racine's  lack  of  imaginative  expression. 
The  Elizabethans  have  created  in  us  an  appetite  for  this  which  finds 
satisfaction  in  the  French  romantic  writers  whom  M.  Lemaitre  evidently 
despises  rather  than  in  the  delicate  and  subtle  art  of  Racine.  And 
here  it  is  worth  while  to  point  out  a  strange  oversight  on  the  part 
of  this  champion  of  classicism.  He  makes  merry,  as  many  have  done 
before  him,  over  the  '  couleur  locale '  of  the  Romantics  and  against 
it  places  the  '  couleur  historique '  of  Racine,  shewing  quite  truly  that 
Racine  manages  to  give  the  right  setting  to  his  exotic  personages 
without  the  help  of  technical  terms.  But  the  same  might  be  said  with 
equal  truth  of  the  chief  of  the  Romantics.  A  comparison  of  La  Idgende 
des  siecles  with,  say,  the  painful  archaeology  of  Leconte  de  Lisle  shews 
that  Hugo  was  past  master  in  the  very  art  so  greatly  praised  by 
M.  Lemaitre  in  Racine,  viz.,  the  power  of  creating  an  atmosphere  and 
conveying  the  general  truth  of  a  distant  period  or  climate  without  regard 
to  accuracy  of  detail. 

H.  F.  STEWART. 

CAMBRIDGE. 

35—2 


548  Reviews 


Guy  de  Maupassant.     Sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke.     Von  PAUL  MAHN. 
Berlin:  Egon  Fleischel  und  Co.,  1909.     8vo.     xvi  +  556  pp. 

Dies  umfangliche,  mit  Fleiss  und  Liebe  geschriebene  Werk  ist  ohne 
Zweifel  zur  Zeit  das  einzige,  aus  dem  eine  wirkliche  Kenntnis  von 
Leben  und  Werken  des  letzten  grossen  gallischen  Erzahlers  geschb'pft 
werden  kann ;  vor  allem  die  Analyse  der  Dichtungen  lasst  die  kurzen, 
gelegentlichen  Andeutungen  weit  hinter  sich,  die  man  in  franzosischen 
Blichern  liber  Maupassant  findet.  Dennoch  muss  ich  gestehen,  dass 
das  Ergebnis  zu  der  Arbeitsleistung  nicht  im  rechten  Verhaltnis  steht. 
Die  Biographic  bringt  nur  in  kritischer  Abwehr  literarischer  Legenden 
einen  allerdings  sehr  dankenswerteii  Fortschritt.  Die  Personlichkeiten, 
mit  denen  der  grosse  Schriftsteller  in  einem  belebten  Dasein  in  Ver- 
bindung  kam,  werden  zu  sehr  als  bekannt  vorausgesetzt,  die  Eltern  und 
die  schriftstellernde  Geliebte  (Frau  Lecomte  de  Nouy)  etwa  ausge- 
nommen.  Und  doch  ware  sein  Verhaltnis  zu  Edmond  de  Goncourt 
z.  B.  so  gut  wie  das  zu  Louis  Bouilhet  einer  Besprechung  wiirdig 
gewesen,  die  ganz  gewiss  zu  einer  Entlastung  des  von  Mahn  mit  Recht 
(S.  467,  482,  525)  scharf  getadelten  'gentilhomme  de  lettres'  nicht 
gefuhrt  hatte.  Der  Verfasser  geht  aber  liberhaupt  auf  die  literarischen 
Zusammenhange  viel  zu  wenig  ein,  und  wo  er  es  tut,  wie  (S.  96)  bei  der 
Charakteristik  des  '  fabliau,'  geschieht  es  in  nicht  einwandfreier  Weise. 
Ebenso  wird  die  Zweiteilung  in  'Darsteller'  und  'Erzahler'  (S.  375), 
an  sich  treffend  und  fruchtbar,  zu  ausschliesslich  vom  Standpunkt 
Maupassants  aus  angenommen. 

Und  wie  die  literarhistorische,  bleibt  die  literarische  Seite  des 
Buches  hinter  unseren  Erwartungen  zuriick.  Die  Ubersetzungen, 
durchweg  misslungen,  werden  durch  die  Unmoglichkeit,  einen  Meister 
des  einfachen  Ausdrucks  adaquat  zu  libersetzen,  entschuldigt.  Aber  es 
tut  weh,  in  einem  Werk  uber  diesen  Virtuosen  Ausdriicke  zu  treffen  wie 
'wurstige  Skeptik'  (S.  340),  'tranen'  im  Sinne  von  'weinen'  (S.  214), 
oder  das  zweimalige  '  ungeheuer  skeptisch '  in  sich  deckenden  Stellen 
(S.  321,  337).  Und  nicht  einmal,  wo  sich  in  ihm  ein  berechtigter 
Zorn  regt,  findet  er  das  rechte  Wort:  viel  zu  schwach  ist  (S.  467) 
der  Ausdruck  '  Gemeinheit '  fur  die  bodenlose  Niedertracht,  von  der 
Goncourts  schniiffelndes  Behagen  erzahlt. 

Ist  das  Buch  aus  diesen  Grlinden  nicht  geworden,  wozu  der  hinge- 
bende  Eifer  des  Verfassers  es  wohl  gern  gemacht  hatte,  so  bleiben  doch 
Verdienste  genug,  um  derentwillen  wir  Mahns  Werk  uber  seine  franzo- 
sischen Vorganger  stellen  konnten. 

Schon  in  der  Gliederung  und  Einleitung  der  Novellen  ist  zur 
tieferen  Erkenntnis  seiner  literarischen  Eigenart  wenigstens  ein  guter 
Schritt  vorvvarts  getan,  wenn  auch  die  Analysen  oft  zu  ausserlich 
bleiben.  Wichtiger  noch  sind  die  Beobachtungen  uber  Kunst  und 
Technik,  die  uber  Maupassants  Stil  (S.  408),  seine  Kunst  der  Schlusse 
(S.  418),  seine  Sensibilitat  (S.  398)  und  seinen  Esprit  (S.  413)  feine 
Bemerkungen  bringen  und  ein  vortrefflich  gewahltes  Belegen  die  Kunst 


Reviews  549 

dieses  neuen  Boccaccio  illustrieren.  Endlich  aber  sind  auch  Mahns 
Worte  liber  die  Personlichkeit  Maupassants  von  Bedeutung :  sein  Ver- 
haltnis  zu  den  Frauen,  zur  Schriftstellerei  (S.  518),  zur  Musik  (S.  395), 
zur  Politik,  zur  eleganten  Welt  sind  noch  nirgends  so  klar  und  fest 
ausgezeichnet  worden.  Nur  einen  Denker  mochte  ich  ihn  nicht  mit 
Mahn  (S.  159,  169)  nennen  und  auch  von  seiner  Philosophic  (S.  313- 
448  f.)  ungern  sprechen.  Er  war  ein  wunderbarer  literarischer  Apparat, 
der  kaum  seines  Gleichen  hatte ;  begabt  mit  unerhorter  Kraft,  seltsame 
Vorgange  so  loszulb'sen,  dass  sie  bei  aller  Verstandlichkeit  ihre  Seltsam- 
keit  behalten  wie  pathologische  Praparate ;  aber  dies  war  ihin  eben  nur 
moglich,  weil  er  nicht  philosophierte,  d.  h.,  keine  Gegensatze  aufzuheben 
suchte,  vielmehr  die  Unverstandlichkeit  der  sozialen  und  psycholo- 
gischen  Zusammenhange  einfach  als  ein  'Urphanomen'  anerkannte.  Ein 
Ansatz  zum  Ethiker  war  vorhanden  in  diesem  vom  Verfasser  richtig 
gewtirdigten  sozialen  Mitleid,  dass  die  Anklage  fiir  so  viel  nur  verschul- 
detes  Elend  mit  Schopenhauer'schem  Grimm  in  das  Dossier  de  Dieu 
(S.  441)  schrieb ;  aber  zu  einer  Klarung  auch  nur  der  eigenen  Ansichten 
hat  es  der  unaufhorlich  beobachtende  Dichter  nicht  gebracht,  nicht 
bringen  wollen.  Die  seltsame,  echt  franzosische  Naivetat  des  Raffine- 
ments  stort  er  durch  keine  Verallgemeinerung  und  das  Raffinement  der 
Naivetat  durch  keine  ethischen  Prinzipien.  Impressionist  im  mora- 
lischen  Sinn,  Klassizist  im  asthetischen  ist  er  unter  den  vielen  Misch- 
ungen  und  Garungsprodukten  unserer  Zeit  eins  der  merkiirdigsten, 
der  gelungensten. 

Echt  deutsch  zerbricht  Mahn  sich  dariiber  den  Kopf,  ob  Maupassant 
schon  Genie  oder  nur  Talent  heissen  dtirfe  (S.  426  f.).  Ich  meine  auch  : 
er  stand  an  der  Grenze.  In  der  Meisterschaft  der  Form  hat  er,  althei- 
mische  Ubung  erneuernd  und  steigernd,  ein  erstaunliches  Talent 
erwiesen;  in  der  Kunst,  sich  an  den  wunderbaren  Verwicklungen  des 
Weltlaufs  immer  wieder  erregen  zu  lassen,  zeigt  er  eine  heute  ganz 
einzige  Genialitat. 

RICHARD  M.  MEYER. 

BERLIN. 


The  French  Influence  in  English  Literature  from  the  Accession  of 
Elizabeth  to  the  Restoration.  By  A.  H.  UPHAM.  New  York: 
Columbia  University  Press,  1908.  8vo.  ix  +  560  pp. 

This  essay — the  author  insists  that  the  work  must  not  be  regarded 
as  final — will,  in  spite  of  its  deficiencies,  be  welcomed  by  all  students  of 
literature  in  England  and  France,  and  help  to  fill  a  serious  gap.  After 
an  Introduction  rather  overladen  with  facts  for  twenty-four  pages,  a 
second  chapter  in  which  we  distinguish  the  guiding  hand  of  Professor 
J.  B.  Fletcher,  deals  with  the  Areopagus  Group.  Though  the  idea  of  a 
parallel  between  the  group  of  Sidney  and  the  Pleiade  is  not  new,  the 
numerous  points  of  contact  are  clearly  made  out  by  the  author,  and 


550  Reviews 

not  too  closely  pressed,  as  is  becoming.  In  the  third  chapter  on  the 
Elizabethan  Sonnet  we  observe  a  distinct  tendency  to  underrate  the 
dominating  factor  that  the  sonneteering  outburst  led  by  Watson  and 
Sidney  was  directly  prompted  by  the  poets  of  the  Pleiade,  and  not 
by  the  Italian  Petrarchists.  Moreover,  the  results  of  recent  research 
are  occasionally  overlooked,  as  in  the  case  of  the  sonnets  of  Daniel  and 
Drummond  of  Hawthornden,  which  owe  as  much  to  France,  or  very 
nearly,  as  to  Italy.  Next  a  chapter  of  some  seventy-five  pages  is 
devoted  to  the  translators  and  imitators  of  Du  Bartas.  Here  the  author 
is  evidently  on  congenial  ground,  and  in  these  few  pages,  packed  with 
information,  supplies  interesting  parallels  and  traces  probable  lines  of 
connection  which  are  as  yet  far  from  being  common  knowledge.  It  may 
be  noted  that  Milton  is  put  aside  rather  too  unceremoniously,  and  that 
certain  of  the  longer  poems  of  Drummond  have  not  been  taken  into 
account.  Despite  these  few  deficiencies,  the  chapter  in  question  is 
about  the  best  in  the  book,  and  affords  ample  evidence  of  independent 
research.  Chapter  v,  on  Rabelais,  supplies  less  promising  material,  but 
is  none  the  less  very  readable  and  well-informed.  In  Chapter  vi 
Montaigne's  relation  to  Bacon,  Shakespeare,  Ben  Jonson,  Raleigh, 
Drummond,  Burton  and  Browne  is  investigated.  On  the  important 
question  of  Montaigne  in  England  Mr  Upham  appears  to  have  carefully 
studied  the  works  of  J.  M.  Robertson  (1897),  Jakob  Feis  (1891), 
F.  Dieckow  (1903),  and  Miss  Elizabeth  Robbins  Hooker  (1902),  but, 
strangely  enough,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  read  the  remarkable  studies 
of  his  country-woman,  Miss  Grace  Norton.  He  is  distinctly  behind  the 
times  in  regarding  Montaigne  as  a  pure  sceptic,  and  instead  of  a  rather 
dry  accumulation  of  facts  from  which  the  reader  is  left  to  draw  his  own 
conclusions,  we  would  have  preferred  to  have  been  shown  in  what  way 
and  to  what  extent  the  authors  mentioned  were  influenced  by  Montaigne. 
In  connection  with  Bacon,  for  example,  the  Novum  Organum  is  passed 
over  in  silence;  we  are  not  told  if  Bacon's  invention  of  the  experimental 
method  owed  anything  to  Montaigne.  We  trust  that  M.  Villey  will 
clear  up  this  and  other  points  in  his  promised  parallel  between  Montaigne 
and  Bacon.  The  sources  of  Montaigne's  Essays  and  of  those  who  copied 
them  should  also  have  been  taken  into  consideration  in  estimating  certain 
specific  borrowings.  The  results  obtained  by  Villey  were  not  then  avail- 
able, but  those  of  J.  de  Zangroniz  and  others  were  in  print.  Thus  some 
of  the  passages  from  Drummond's  Cypress  Grove  quoted  in  Appendix  B 
as  imitated  from  Montaigne's  Essays  turn  out  on  closer  investigation  to 
have  been  transmuted  in  part  from  Charron's  Sagesse.  A  consideration 
of  Seventeenth  Century  Precieuses  and  Platonists  occupies  the  seventh 
chapter — not  a  very  obvious  division  of  the  subject.  Satisfactory  head- 
way is  made  in  Chapter  vm  (Romance,  Drama,  and  Heroic  Poem),  and 
in  Chapter  ix  (Minor  Literary  Forms),  till  we  reach  the  final  chapter 
which  is  occupied  with  the  author's  Conclusion.  A  useful  Bibliography 
and  two  Appendices  complete  the  volume.  The  general  impression  left 
is  that  much  valuable  material  has  been  collected,  but  that  the  extent 
and  particularly  the  nature  of  the  influence  exercised  by  French  litera- 


Reviews  551 

ture  in  the  period  chosen  has  not  been  sufficiently  emphasised;  the 
objective  method  has  been  carried  out  too  rigorously. 

L.  E.  KASTNER. 

MANCHESTER. 


Le  Lyrisme  et  la  Prdciosite  cultistes  en  Espagne.  Par  LUCIEN  PAUL 
THOMAS.  (Beiheft  zur  Zeitschrift  fur  romanische  Philologie.} 
Halle :  Niemeyer,  1909.  8vo.  191  pp. 

This  monograph  is  a  study  of  the  evolution  and  progress  in  Spain 
of  cultism,  the  post-renaissance  parasite  known  in  other  countries  as 
marinism,  euphuism,  or  preciosity.  Traces  of  it  have  been  detected  in 
earlier  periods,  under  the  influence  of  Provengal  and  Petrarchian  poetry, 
and  scholastic  writings.  But  humanistic  stylists  and  rhetoricians  were 
the  medium  par  excellence  in  which  fine  writing  was  degraded  into  the 
pedantry  and  chronic  bad  taste  of  the  cultists.  In  the  Peninsula  the 
'  new  style,'  as  it  was  at  first  called,  was  consciously  affected  about  the 
year  1609  by  Carrillo,  Gongora,  and  Paravicino;  Herrera  of  the  previous 
century  had  prepared  the  way.  The  fact  that  gongorism  became 
synonymous  with  cultism  may  show  that  Gongora  was  the  precise 
originator — still  a  mute  question — or  simply  that  he  was  considered 
the  arch-sinner  in  conscious  preciosity;  it  may  only  emphasise,  however, 
that  he  was  the  greatest  poet  of  the  new  school  and  the  one  who  had 
made  the  most  conspicuous  volte-face,  in  the  interest  of  notoriety.  All 
this,  and  the  literary  war  which  ensued,  in  which  Lope,  Tirso,  Alarc<5n, 
Quevedo  and  other  writers  were  arrayed  against  Gongora,  Jauregui, 
Villamediana  and  their  numerous  followers,  and  the  subsequent  triumph 
of  the  bad  cause,  M.  Thomas  studies  in  a  most  masterly  way.  He  has 
an  enviable  command  of  his  facts,  the  fruit  of  long  investigation,  and 
displays  an  independence  of  judgment  that  is  at  times  somewhat  dis- 
concerting. But  the  nature  of  his  subject  precludes  definitiveness  in 
details,  more  especially  in  the  sections  dealing  with  the  ill-explored 
'  selva  selvaggia '  of  the  early  decades  of  the  seventeenth  century.  The 
relation,  for  example,  of  Marino  to  Spanish  cultism  has  not  been 
satisfactorily  determined.  It  may  be  noted  that  Lope,  in  his  dedication 
of  Virtud,  pobreza  y  muger  (1625),  does  not  seem  to  consider  'la  barbara 
aspereza  que  llaman  culta'  the  same  as  marinism.  Then,  too,  M.  Thomas 
has  wholly  overlooked  the  novel  and  the  drama  in  his  researches.  They 
contain  information  that  helps  to  antidate  phenomena  noted  in  his  study. 
Tirso,  it  may  be  recalled,  satirized  cultism  in  Amor  y  celos...,  probably 
acted  in  1616.  So  did  Lope  in  El  anzuelo  de  Fenisa,  licensed  in  the 
same  year.  Both  plays  use  the  word  '  culto  '  in  an  unfavourable  sense. 
Lope's  comedia  also  refers  to  the  purists  as  'los  palpables,'  a  designation 
that  has  escaped  M.  Thomas,  as  have  also  the  following :  '  la  nueva  seta ' 
(El  castigo  sin  venganza) ;  '  estos  poetas  que  escriben  sin  natural '  (JLas 
flores  de  don  Juan,  cited  1618);  in  Los  peligros  de  la  ausencia,  Lope 
designates  the  new  school  as  poets  who  write  '  a  lo  moderno.'  In  La 


552  Reviews 

dama  boba  (MS.  dated  April  28,  1613)  Lope  seems  to  recognise  cultism 
as  a  legitimate  ingredient  of  style : 

Nise. 

Hay  dos  prosas  diferentes, 
Poetica  e  historial : 
La  historial,  lisa  y  leal, 
Muestra  verdades  patentes 
Por  frasi  y  terminos  claros ; 
La  poetica  es  hermosa, 
Varia,  culta,  licenciosa 
Y  oscura  en  ingenios  raros : 
Tiene  mil  exornaciones 
Y  retoricas  figuras. 

Celia. 

Pues  de  cosas  tan  obscuras 
j,Juzgan  tantos? 

JVise. 

No  le  pones, 
Celia,  pequena  objecion  ; 
Pero  asi  corre  el  engano 
Del  mundo. 

The   passage   is   somewhat  ambiguous,  more  especially  as  Nise  is  a 
bluestocking.     The  same  play  attacks  conceptism. 

One  of  the  few  plays  mentioned  by  M.  Thomas,  Tirso's  La  celosa  de 
si  misma  is  ascribed  to  the  year  1623.  It  is  usually  dated  much  earlier. 
M.  Thomas  promises  a  second  part  to  his  study.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that 
cultism  in  the  novel  and  the  drama  will  there  receive  treatment. 

MILTON  A.  BUCHANAN. 
TORONTO. 


Dante  Alighieri.  La  Vita  Nova.  Suivant  le  texte  critique  prepare 
pour  la  '  Societd  Dantesca  Italiana '  par  Michele  Barbi.  Traduite 
avec  une  Introduction  et  des  Notes  par  HENRY  COCHIN.  Paris: 
H.  Champion,  1908.  8vo.  Ixxx  +  246  pp. 

Dante's  Vita  Nuova.  With  Rossetti's  Version.  Edited  by  H.  OELSNER. 
(The  King's  Classics.)  London:  Chatto  and  Windus,  1908.  8vo. 
lix  +  274  pp. 

The  Vita  Nuova  (or  Vita  Nova  as  M.  Cochin  prefers  to  call  it,  finding 
the  Latin  orthography  more  congenial  to  French  readers)  lends  itself 
wonderfully  to  translation  in  the  kindred  Romance  language.  The 
French  translator  can  achieve  a  closeness  and  literalness  of  rendering 
quite  impossible  to  us  Teutons,  and  that  without  undue  violence  to  his 
literary  medium.  Of  M.  Cochin's  rendering,  clear  and  limpid  and 
unlaboured  yet  with  a  delicate  archaic  flavour — borrowed  in  part 
from  the  vocabulary  of  the  Roman  de  la  Rose — this  is  conspicuously 


Reviews  553 

true.  He  is  to  be  congratulated  (so  far  as  a  foreigner  may  presume  to 
judge)  on  the  grace  and  the  faithfulness  both  of  his  prose  and  of  his 
verse  translations,  which  form  a  charming  vis-a-vis  to  Signor  Barbi's 
text.  The  prose  especially  is  not  only  literal  to  a  marvel,  but  manages 
constantly  to  preserve  something  of  the  cadence  of  the  original.  The 
introductory  '  Reflections  on  the  Vita  Nova '  have  the  characteristic 
illuminating  quality  of  all  good  French  work ;  and  M.  Cochin  manages 
to  deal  freshly  and  strongly  with  a  well-worn  subject.  Especially  good  is 
his  estimate  of  Dante's  relation  to  the  dolce  stil  nuovo  and  of  his  real 
contribution  to  vernacular  poetry. 

The  dainty  series  of 'The  King's  Classics'  is  enriched  by  an  excellent 
edition  of  Rossetti's  classic  rendering  of  the  Vita  Nuova :  a  rendering 
to  which  M.  Cochin  himself  pays  the  highest  tribute,  as  to  '  the  best 
result  obtained  hitherto.'  '  Mais  1'anglais,'  he  adds,  '  est,  pour  traduire, 
une  langue  merveilleuse.'  Nothing  like  the  literalness  of  a  French 
translation  is  possible  in  English,  for  the  genius  of  the  language  is  so 
diverse.  Nor  can  the  identical  cadence  and  melody  be  reproduced  in 
our  tongue,  as  M.  Cochin  manages  to  reproduce  it  with  but  sparing 
archaisms  and  inversions.  Yet  Rossetti's  noble  translation  is  faithful 
even  in  its  aberrations,  being  the  product  of  a  mind  uniquely  gifted  for 
the  task.  On  Rossetti  and  his  Dante-worship  and  the  genesis  of  his 
translation  and  many  kindred  subjects  Professor  Oelsner's  Introduction 
is  most  valuable ;  and  useful  also  are  the  well-chosen  notes  and  the  four 
illustrative  Appendices. 

LONSDALE  RAGG. 

TICKENCOTE,  RUTLANDSHIRE. 


Tennis  en  Media.  Over  de  Stemverhouding  bij  Konsonanten  in  Moderne 
talen  met  een  Aanhangsel  over  de  fonetiese  Verklaring  der  Wetten 
van  Verner  en  Grimm.  Door  H.  LOGEMAN.  Gand  :  E.  van  Goethem. 
1908.  8vo.  ix  +  206  pp. 

Experimentelle  Versuche  ilber  die  labialen  Verschlusslaute  im  Deutschen 
und  Franzosisclien  mit  besonderer  Berucksichtigung  methodischer 
Fraqen.  Kapitel  i  bis  in.  Von  PAUL  SEYDEL.  Breslau : 
H.  Fleischmann.  1908.  8vo.  69  pp. 

The  problem  of  the  classification  of  stop-consonants  is  one  which 
has  engaged  the  attention  of  phoneticians  for  a  long  time,  and  still 
remains  one  of  the  most  debatable  in  the  whole  field  of  phonetics. 
A  convenient  review  of  the  history  of  this  problem  will  be  found  in  the 
recently  published  Breslau  dissertation  by  Seydel.  This  is  however 
still  incomplete,  the  final  chapter  which  is  to  bring  the  results  of  the 
author's  experiments  not  having  appeared  at  the  moment  of  writing. 
It  is  therefore  not  yet  time  to  judge  how  much  furtherance  we  may 
expect  from  this  new  contribution  to  a  delicate  problem.  It  is  worth 
noting,  however,  that  in  contrast  to  some  recent  investigators  Seydel 
emphasises  once  more  the  value  of  the  distinction  between  '  Spreng- 


554  Reviews 

und  Losungslaute,'   first  set  up  by  Sievers,  as  a  criterion  for  classifi- 
cation. 

The  traditional  division  of  these  sounds  was  a  dual  one  into  the 
series  Tenues  and  Mediae,  which  finds  its  expression  in  the  employment 
of  a  double  set  of  written  signs  to  denote  them.  It  was  natural  then 
for  phoneticians  to  start  from  this  dual  division,  and  to  try  and  give  it 
a  scientific  significance.  This  was  not  easy,  for  although  the  double 
series  of  signs  was  employed  in  practically  all  languages  which  were 
written  as  well  as  spoken,  very  few  languages  agreed  in  the  varieties  of 
sound  actually  associated  with  them.  The  Tenues  and  Mediae,  when  a 
review  of  the  languages  was  held,  represented  two  allied  series  of  sounds 
each  showing  many  varieties  in  detail.  So  long  therefore  as  the 
traditional  dual  division  was  upheld,  the  burning  question  was  to  find  a 
characteristic  difference  between  the  two  series  which  held  good  for  all 
languages  no  matter  how  manifold  the  variation  might  be  in  detail. 
The  dual  division  still  exerts  its  influence  on  the  minds  of  phoneticians 
although  there  is  little  agreement  in  regard  to  the  criterion  by  which  it 
is  to  be  carried  through,  as  may  be  seen  from  Seydel's  historical  review 
above  mentioned.  It  is  noticeable  however  (although  this  fact  is  not 
brought  out  clearly  by  Seydel)  that  in  recent  times  a  tendency  has 
declared  itself  to  abandon  the  traditional  dual  division.  This  is 
exemplified  by  Jespersen,  whose  position  in  regard  to  this  question 
seems  to  me  more  independent  than  would  appear  from  Seydel's  notice 
(where  he  is  grouped  along  with  Brticke).  Jespersen  divides  the  stops 
into  five,  not  two  classes ;  and  a  characteristic  feature  is  his  expression 
of  the  opinion,  that  one  of  these  classes  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
belonging  to  either  the  Tenuis  or  the  Media  series.  This  step  in  the 
direction  away  from  the  dual  division  is  not  perhaps  a  very  decisive 
one:  Jespersen's  opinion  just  cited  is  expressed  quite  guardedly,  and  the 
old  duality  evidently  still  looms  large  on  his  mental  horizon.  Further- 
more his  classification  rests  entirely  on  the  laryngeal  factors  involved  in 
the  production  of  these  sounds,  to  the  neglect  of  the  oral  factors  (mode 
of  explosion  etc.).  But  it  is  worth  while  perhaps  to  raise  the  question 
as  to  whether  such  a  step  be  not  necessary,  whether  the  dual  division  be 
not  a  Will-o'-the-wisp.  It  does  not  follow  necessarily  in  the  first  place, 
because  most  languages  recognise  a  division  of  stops  into  two  classes, 
that  this  division  rests  on  a  constant,  objective  difference  between  the 
two.  In  the  second  place,  if  we  start  from  the  assumed  necessity  of  a 
dual  division  it  always  raises  the  question  of  a  '  characteristic '  or 
'  essential '  difference,  which  has  to  be  found  ere  it  can  be  made  the 
criterion  of  division.  And  then  we  must  ask,  Is  it  quite  clear  what  is 
meant  by  a  characteristic  or  essential  difference  ?  Have  we  as  yet 
defined  quite  objectively  what  is  characteristic  or  essential  in  this 
connection  ?  My  doubts  are  not  removed,  rather,  greatly  strengthened, 
by  reading  Mr  Logeman's  work,  in  which  the  search  for  the  essential 
difference  plays  a  great  part.  I  am  not  going  to  deny  that  an  objective 
essential  difference  may  finally  be  found  to  exist  between  a  Tenuis  and 
a  Media,  but  I  question  strongly  whether  it  is  such  as  Mr  Logeman 


Reviews  555 

conceives  it  to  be.  Mr  Logeman  seeks  for  the  characteristic  difference 
from  the  acoustical  standpoint.  To  explain  the  difference,  he  looks  for 
a  genetical  factor  (or  rather  series  of  factors)  whose  variation  produces 
an  auditive  effect  recognised  by  the  ear.  As  this  standpoint  is  carried 
through  by  Mr  Logeman,  it  is  open  to  the  objection  that  a  confusion  is 
made  between  two  very  different  things :  namely,  sounds  in  the  physical, 
and  sounds  in  the  linguistic  sense.  Mr  Logeman  comes  to  the  con- 
clusion that  a  Tenuis  has  always  a  different  resonance  cavity  from  the 
corresponding  Media,  and  that  this  fact  is  the  '  essential '  difference 
between  the  two.  But  this  difference  in  resonance  cavity  is  only  the 
condition  of  a  difference  in  sound  physically  speaking;  it  does  not 
necessarily  follow  that  the  linguistic  ear  ('Geho'r')  recognises  it.  A  p 
pronounced  with  the  lips  protruded  and  one  pronounced  with  the  lips 
drawn  in  against  the  teeth  are  physically  quite  different  sounds,  but  for 
the  linguistic  ear  both  are  the  same  sound,  and  the  same  holds  good  in 
many  other  examples  which  will  occur  to  every  phonetician.  What 
reason  is  there  therefore  to  conclude  that  what  is  in  such  cases  not  an 
essential  difference,  should  be  one  in  the  case  of  Tenuis  and  Media  ? 
Mr  Logeman  apparently  feels  dimly  that  he  is  here  in  conflict  with  his 
own  conception  of  '  type-klanken '  (type-sounds)  according  to  which  a 
speech-sound  in  the  phonetical  sense  is  an  abstraction  from  a  whole 
series  of  physically  different  sounds  (which  the  linguistic  ear  accepts  as 
one  and  the  same  sound).  He  attempts  to  get  over  this  by  drawing  a 
fine  distinction  between  '  theoretical '  and  '  practical '  resonance  differ- 
ences. The  latter  exist  for  the  ear,  the  former  do  not.  But  he  makes 
no  attempt  to  show  why  this  difference  in  the  case  of  Tenuis  and 
Media  is  a  '  practical '  one.  It  is  plain  that  before  we  decide  what  is 
essential  to  the  ear  for  recognising  difference  in  sounds,  we  must  have 
a  clear  idea  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  linguistic  ear  recognises 
similarity  in  physically  different  sounds.  Do  we  not  here  reach  a  point 
at  which  the  phonetician  must  call  in  the  aid  of  the  psychologist  ?  It 
is  significant  that  Mr  Logeman's  own  confidence  in  the  value  of  his  essen- 
tial difference  seems  to  vary  at  different  times.  The  final  sections  of  his 
work  weaken  it  to  such  an  extent,  that  it  seems  to  be  in  considerable 
danger  of  vanishing  into  thin  air.  I  mention  here  at  once  a  further 
defect  in  Mr  Logeman's  reasoning.  While  in  general  we  must  admit  that 
there  is  a  feeling  for  a  characteristic  difference  (however  hard  to  define) 
between  Tenuis  and  Media  in  most  languages,  we  must  also  recognise 
that  this  feeling  is  not  so  persistent  as  Mr  Logeman  makes  out.  It  is 
sometimes  lost,  where  it  once  must  have  existed.  This  occurs,  as  is  well 
known,  in  various  German  dialects.  The  conditions  under  which  this 
takes  place  are  not  yet  clear,  though  one  of  them  is  doubtless  absence 
of  voice  in  the  Media.  But  the  fact  itself  may  be  accepted  as  a  strong 
hint  that  the  difference  between  Tenuis  and  Media  is  one  of  degree,  that 
between  the  clearly  recognisable  extremes  there  are  '  Zwischenstufen,' 
which  do  not  seem  to  belong  to  either  group.  In  practice,  if  not  in 
theory,  Mr  Logeman  perhaps  recognises  this  (but  cf.  below):  witness 
such  phrases,  which  he  frequently  uses,  as  '  a  Tenuis  which  makes  the 


556  Revieivs 

impression  of  a  Media '  etc.  I  take  the  opportunity  of  suggesting  that 
the  factor  of  intensity  may  have  some  value  in  the  explanation  of  such 
'  Zwischenstufen.'  Compare  the  case  cited  by  Jespersen1  of  the  con- 
fusion of  initial  p  and  b  in  South  German  dialects.  There  is  a  strong 
tendency  in  German  for  on-sounding  consonants  to  be  lenes2.  It  seems 
to  me  that  as  the  lenis  level  is  approached  the  ear  loses  the  faculty  of 
distinguishing  between  Tenuis  and  Media  if  both  are  voiceless.  This 
applies  to  the  hearer :  the  speaker  himself  may  still  be  able  to  dis- 
tinguish on  the  basis  of  his  muscular  sensations  when  all  distinction  for 
the  ear  is  lost.  And  also  at  the  fortis  level  it  is  perhaps  open  to  doubt 
whether  the  difference  between  Tenuis  and  Media  can  be  perceived  by 
the  ear  quite  independently  of  all  but  auditive  associations.  It  is  by 
no  means  clear  to  me  that  the  whisper  test  on  which  Mr  Logeman  lays 
much  weight  proves  that  the  ear  is  so  independent.  Even  in  English 
where  the  '  Fllistergerausch '  plays  the  rdle  of  voice  in  the  case  of 
Media,  I  cannot  be  certain  that  the  ear  perceives  inevitably  the 
difference  in  a  pair  of  words  such  as  '  lacking '  and  '  lagging '  when 
whispered.  A  little  experiment  which  I  have  attempted  with  such 
pairs  of  words  on  a  listener  seems  to  bear  this  out  strongly ;  but  here 
again  the  matter  seems  to  me  to  be  only  capable  of  final  solution  by 
the  psychologist. 

Mr  Loge man's  investigations  are  planned  on  an  extensive  scale — 
although  perhaps  not  quite  so  extensive  as  the  'moderne  Talen  '  in  the 
title  might  lead  one  to  expect,  the  languages  actually  examined  being 
French  and  the  Germanic  tongues  (English,  German,  Dutch,  Danish, 
Swedish,  Norwegian).  One  cannot  but  admire  the  extent  of  Mr  Loge- 
man's  practical  linguistic  attainments,  but  it  seems  doubtful  whether 
his  selection  from  the  modern  languages  is  not  at  once  too  wide  and 
too  narrow.  Too  wide  because  he  can  hardly  do  justice  to  all  the 
languages  treated  inside  the  necessary  limits — the  very  extensive 
material  which  the  German  dialects  alone  offer  for  the  treatment  of 
this  question  is  scarcely  touched  upon :  Mr  Logeman,  e.g.,  gives  only  a 
passing  notice  to  the  interesting  stops  of  the  German  dialects,  and  his 
practical  identification  of  the  S.  G.  Mediae  with  the  Danish3  in  no  wise 
balances  this.  Too  narrow,  because  after  all  the  Germanic  languages 
and  French  represent  a  rather  arbitrary  limitation  of  the  whole  field  of 
modern  languages.  One  has  a  feeling  that  Mr  Logeman  owes  us  a 
proof  that  the  generalisations  he  erects  on  the  basis  of  this  material 
could  have  anything  but  a  very  limited  applicability. 

Mr  Logeman's  book  further  presents  many  difficulties  to  the  reader 
on  account  of  its  defects  of  exposition.  It  contains  an  unusual  number 
of  repetitions,  anticipations,  and  digressions.  The  author  has  his  hobby 
horses  which  are  constantly  running  away  with  him :  such  as  the  worth- 
lessness  of  all  attempts  to  grasp  the  nature  of  Tenuis  and  Media  on  the 
basis  of  the  contrast  between  voice  and  voicelessness,  the  '  verkeerde 
isolatie '  (an  evil  spirit  which  apparently  dogs  the  steps  of  everybody 

1  Lehrbuch  der  Phonetik,  p.  110. 

2  Cf.  Saran,  Deutsche  Verslehre,  p.  68.  3  See  §  49. 


Reviews  557 

but  himself)  etc.  The  development  of  his  own  views  is  inextricably 
mixed  up  with  polemic  excursions  and  definitions  of  technical  terms. 
Under  the  circumstances  the  lack  of  a  table  of  contents  makes  itself 
felt,  in  spite  of  a  careful  index. 

The  intention  of  the  book  seems  to  be  a  double  one :  first,  the  dis- 
covery of  the  essential  difference  between  Tenuis  and  Media ;  secondly, 
an  attempt  to  lay  bare  the  conditions  under  which  voice  is  present  or 
absent  in  the  production  of  stops  and  spirants.  These  then  prove 
often  to  be  further  the  conditions  of  a  transition  of  sounds  from  one 
class  to  another,  which  as  will  appear  must  be  considered  a  rather 
surprising  result  from  Mr  Logeman's  standpoint.  I  have  indicated 
shortly  above  the  nature  of  the  contrast  which  the  author  conceives 
between  Tenuis  and  Media,  as  also  my  opinion  that  the  conception  is 
exceedingly  vague.  There  is  indeed  more  than  reason  to  believe  that 
it  is  quite  a  vague  one  even  for  the  author  himself — otherwise  he 
could  hardly  employ  such  contradictory  phrases  as :  'En  media  die 
geheel  de  indruk  maakt  van  een  tenuis'  (§  57);  this  from  an  author 
who  declares  elsewhere  that  the  ear  is  the  only  judge  of  a  sound ! 
What  is  a  Media  of  this  sort,  if  not  a  Tenuis  ?  Why  then  call  it  a 
Media  ?  One  almost  suspects  that  anything  which  is  written  b,  d,  g  in 
the  ordinary  orthography  is  a  '  Media '  for  the  author,  even  although 
the  spoken  sound  it  represents  be  actually  a  Tennis.  But  let  us  look 
at  some  of  the  consequences  of  Mr  Logeman's  Tenuis-Media  theory. 

The  articulatory  factors  on  which  this  contrast  between  the  two 
depends  are  asserted  to  be  purely  oral — voice  or  its  absence  is  therefore 
an  accident,  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  sounds  is  concerned,  and  as  any 
oral  articulation  can  a  priori  be  combined  with  voice,  it  follows  that  a 
voiced  Tenuis  is  just  as  possible  as  a  voiced  Media.  Further,  according 
to  the  author,  these  factors  are  concentrated  in  the  moment  of  closure. 
The  form  of  explosion  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  contrast;  it  is  an 
accident  in  the  same  sense  as  the  voice,  for  both  Tenuis  and  Media  may 
be  either  'gesprengt'  or  'gelost.'  (En  passant,  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  when  he  disposes  of  the  '  essentiality '  of  the  distinction  between 
'Spreng-'  and  '  Losungslaute,' the  author,  although  he  polemises  against 
Bremer  who  is  accused  in  a  foot-note  of  a  profound  '  verwarring '  in 
his  ideas,  does  not  even  mention  Sievers,  to  whom  the  whole  conception 
is  owing.)  Under  these  circumstances  nothing  stands  in  the  way  of  an 
extension  of  the  Tenuis-Media  idea  to  the  spirants  as  well  as  the  stops 
and  this  is  accordingly  carried  out. 

All  this  the  author  supposes  to  be  borne  out  by  the  material  which 
he  has  collected  from  the  languages  mentioned  above.  It  may  be  as 
well  to  examine  how  far  this  supposition  is  correct.  We  have  seen  that 
in  the  author's  eye,s  the  essential  difference  between  Tenuis  and  Media 
is  one  of  resonance  cavity.  This  being  so,  one  would  naturally  expect 
that  either  could  occur  as  a  lenis  or  fortis,  and  that  differences  of  breath 
pressure  (intensity)  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  nature  of  the 
sounds.  This  the  author  recognises  in  §  184.  Yet  in  §  35  we  find  the 
statement :  '  Daar  nu  de  adem  bij  de  dan  wijd  openstaande  stembanden 


558  Reviews 

(in  the  case  namely  of  voiceless  initial  Mediae)  in  groter  volume  komt 
aanstromen,  is  die  ademstroom  krachtiger  en  zal  het  kunnen  gebeuren 
dat  de  lenis  tot  semi-fortis,  zelfs  fortis  wordt,  d.  w.  z.  de  Media  kan  zo 
Tennis  warden '  (italics  are  mine).  Why  however  the  Media  should 
change  its  resonance  cavity  and  therewith  its  nature  as  Media  in 
response  to  a  change  in  a  factor  of  which  it  is  independent,  i.e.  breath 
pressure,  the  author  nowhere  explains.  Again,  the  author  insists  till 
one  becomes  weary  of  his  insistence,  that  the  behaviour  of  the  vocal 
chords  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  nature  of  a  Media  or  Tenuis,  yet 
plainly  in  the  passage  just  quoted  the  open  position  of  the  vocal  chords 
is  implicitly  recognised  as  a  condition  for  the  change  of  Media  to  Tenuis, 
while  further  on  in  the  case  of  the  Danish  Mediae  (see  §  54)  it  is 
expressly  claimed  as  the  cause  of  the  shifting  of  these  sounds  in  the 
direction  of  Tenues.  Elsewhere  (p.  130)  the  transition  of  Media  to 
Tenuis  is  limited  to  the  case  in  which  '  de  Media  niet  met  zacht  begin 
gesproken  is,  waar  de  stembanden  diis  niet  eerst  gespannen  waren ' 
(italics  are  mine).  In  any  case  it  is  plain  that  the  author  in  practice, 
although  in  contradiction  of  his  theory,  regards  the  behaviour  of  the 
vocal  chords  as  having  a  very  important  influence  on  the  nature  of  the 
Mediae.  To  this  there  is  also  a  pretty  parallel  in  the  case  of  the  Tenues. 
The  author  furnishes  us  in  §  159  with  the  following  generalisation  on 
the  Tenues  in  the  languages  he  has  examined :  '  De  enkelvoudige  mid- 
dentenuis  zal  altijd  met  stem  gehoord  worden...Naar  mate  de  midden- 
tenuis  meer  stem  heeft,  zal  die  ook  eerder  media  worden.'  If  a  voiced 
Tenuis  is,  as  the  author  asserts  (§  169),  for  all  purposes  the  same  thing 
as  a  voiceless  Tenuis,  why  should  it  then  become  a  Media,  '  naar  mate 
dezelfde  meer  stem  heeft '  ?  Note,  Mr  Logeman  does  not  say  '  a  Tenuis 
becomes  a  Media  when  it  is  voiced/  but,  '  in  proportion  as  it  has  more 
voice.'  The  distinction  is  a  delightfully  fine  one,  but  there  are  plenty 
more  distinctions  in  his  book,  which  are  equally  fine,  and  equally 
delightful.  Does  the  author  really  expect  anyone  to  believe  both  these 
things  together :  (i)  That  the  condition  of  the  glottis,  whether  open  or 
closed  for  the  vibration  of  the  chords,  is  immaterial  to  the  nature  of 
Tenues  and  Mediae ;  and  (ii)  that  the  transition  of  Media  to  Tenuis  or 
vice  versd  is  a  result  of  the  condition  of  the  glottis  ?  Plainly  we  can 
only  understand  this  transition  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  consequence  of  the 
variation  of  essential  factors  which  go  to  make  up  the  '  nature '  of  the 
sounds  involved. 

The  confusion  in  this  book  as  regards  essential  points  hardly  calls 
for  more  exemplification,  and  I  am  accordingly  not  greatly  moved  to 
state  where  I  disagree  with  the  author  in  matters  of  detail,  but  it  will 
be  necessary  to  say  something  about  the  result  of  Mr  Logeman's  in- 
vestigations in  regard  to  the  conditions  which  bring  about  the  voicing 
or  unvoicing  of  stops  and  spirants,  since  on  these  depends  largely 
the  new  conception  of  Verner's  Law  which  is  put  forward  in  the 
Appendix.  The  author  operates  with  two  series  of  factors  to  explain 
the  presence  or  absence  of  voice,  firstly,  the  nature  of  the  on-glide  or 
off-glide ;  secondly,  accent  (stress  and  pitch).  The  employment  of  the 


Reviews  559 

first  may  be  exemplified  from  the  following  formula  based  on  a  review 
of  the  languages  mentioned  above :  '  Elke  begin-media  met  geleidelik 
begin  is  stemloos.  Elke  begin-media  met  zacht  begin  heeft  stem  '  (§  66, 
a  similar  formula  for  the  Tenues  §  117).  That  such  a  formula  is  no 
explanation  is  obvious;  on  the  author's  own  principle  that  the  'organen 
anticiperen  geregeld  een  volgende  posietie,'  there  is  hardly  anything 
left  open  except  to  regard  the  nature  of  the  on-glide  as  dependent  on 
what  follows,  not  vice  versa.  The  author  of  course,  as  indicated  above, 
regards  the  on-glide  as  the  determinative  factor  (§  41).  There  is  some- 
thing more  to  be  said  for  the  influence  of  the  off-glide  as  determinative 
(cp.  the  formulae  for  final  Mediae  and  Tenues).  But  the  glides  can 
hardly  claim  much  importance  in  this  connection  unless  as  inter- 
mediaries ;  they  respond  to  the  same  influences  as  the  consonants 
themselves,  and  the  real  determinative  factors  must  accordingly  be 
looked  for  elsewhere.  We  turn  therefore  with  more  interest  to  the 
role  assigned  by  Mr  Logeman  to  the  factors  of  accent.  Here  we 
meet  with  one  constantly  recurring  conception,  namely  the  following: 
(a)  Decrease  in  expiratory  force  and  falling  tone  protect  a  voiced  stop 
or  spirant  from  being  unvoiced,  and  favour  the  voicing  of  a  voiceless 
one,  i.e.  when  a  voiced  Media  follows  the  stress  and  the  chromatic 
accent  it  remains  voiced;  under  similar  circumstances  a  voiceless  Tenuis 
or  Media  becomes  voiced  (~|  ag'a  remains  ~|ag'a;  ~|  ak°a  >  ~|  ak'a)1. 
(6)  Increasing  expiratory  force  and  rising  tone  have  the  opposite  effect, 
(c)  When  word  stress  and  chromatic  accent  do  not  fall  together  and 
stress  precedes,  then  the  effect  on  a  consonant  standing  between  the 
two  is  the  same  as  in  the  latter  case  (cp.  §  82  a).  The  distinction 
between  (6)  and  (c)  is  only  apparent,  for  although  Mr  Logeman  recognises 
that  a  rise  in  tone  is  not  necessarily  accompanied  by  an  increase  in 
pressure,  in  practice  he  assumes  that  it  generally  is,  and  hence  exercises 
the  effect  here  assigned  to  it.  At  bottom  therefore  the  real  determina- 
tive factor  in  (a)  (6)  (c)  is  the  syllabic  stress.  The  syllabic  musical 
accent  seems  only  to  act  through  the  stress  which  accompanies  it,  since 
Mr  Logeman  evidently  assumes  in  practice  that  falling  tone  and  de- 
creasing pressure,  rising  tone  and  increase  in  pressure  go  together; 
cp.  'Komt...plotzeling  een  luchtstroom  uit  de  longen,  b.  v.  door  dat  de 
stem  de  hogte  inschiet,  als  bij  een  vrag...'  (italics  mine).  There  is  a 
hint  here  of  a  parlous  confusion  between  the  separate  ideas  of  tone  and 
stress.  I  now  proceed  to  illustrate  how  Mr  Logeman  applies  this  theory. 
I  must  however  first  indicate  his  conception  of  the  syllabic  boundary,  as 
it  here  plays  a  role.  To  put  it  shortly  in  the  convenient  terminology 
of  Sievers,  he  recognises  the  existence  of  '  Schallsilben,'  when  word 
stress  and  chromatic  accent  fall  together  before  the  syllabic  boundary ; 
of  ' Drucksilben/  when  both  or  either  come  after  the  boundary:  e.g. 
~|  ata  (Schallsilben),  but  |av~ta  or  ~av|ta  (Drucksilben).  In  the 
last  case  he  in  practice  recognises  a  '  minimal  pause '  between  the  two 

1  In  Mr  Logeman's  notation  -  and  _  mean  high  and  low  tone  respectively;  |  before  a 
syllable  means  that  it  is  stressed.  k°,  k'  are  voiceless  and  voiced  guttural  Tenuis,  and 
so  on. 


560  Reviews 

syllables.  These  syllabic  conditions  he  regards  as  inherent  in  the  nature 
of  language  and  therefore  as  holding  good  for  all  languages  and  all  times. 
That  the  existence  of  Schallsilben  in  German  and  English  is  dependent 
on  quantitative  factors  he  does  not  take  into  account.  Nor  does  he 
trouble  himself  to  enquire  whether  there  is  truth  in  the  assertions  of 
those  who  attribute  to  some  languages  a  preference  for  Drucksilben. 

In  §  82  the  author  discusses  three  sentences  in  his  own  language, 
namely:  (1)  Nou  ja,  dat  kun  je  nu  natuurlik  alle  dagen  zien  gebeuren. 

(2)  Uwe  dagen  zijn  geteld.  (3)  Niet  een  dag,  maar  dagen  lang 

In  (1)  and  (2)  the  g  of  dagen  is  said  to  vary  as  follows:  Speaking  of  No.  1, 
'  voor  [ala]  is  er  'n  miniem  klein  oponthoud  waarin  des  noods  adem 
gehaald  kan  worden,  de  stem  gaat  op  de  [a]  sterk  de  hoogte  in,  [ala] 
wordt  dus  hoog  en  krachtig  ingezet  en  valt  geleidelik  al  minder  en 
minder  van  expiratie  wordende,  tot  de  [on]  van  [geb</>ran].  Bij  de  [a] 
van  [dagan]  is  die  dus  hoger  en  krachtiger  dan  op  de  [a].  Bij  de  [a] 
trillen  de  stembanden  die  ook  voor  de  [a]  (hoewel  minder)  moeten 
trillen.  Er  is  absoluut  geen  pause  voor  de  [g],  die  de  stembanden 
gelegenheid  zou  geven  weer  in  de  rustposietie  (ongespannen,  stemloos !) 
terug  te  vallen.  Dus  is  de  [g]  van  [dagan]  in  't  eerste  geval  een  stem- 
hebbende  lenis,  'n  stemhebbende  media  (Lenis  and  Media  apparently 
once  more  identical ;  cp.  above  p.  558).  Nu  bespreek  ik  't  derde  geval. 
Daar  in  die  samenhang  ligt  de  nadruk  op  de  en  van  dagen,  de  [g]  wordt 
bij  de  tweede  silbe  gevoeld,  er  komt  een  duidelike,  al  is  't  ook  nog  zo 
korte  stroomvermindering  voor  de  [g]  waardoor  de  stembanden  in  de 
rustposietie  terug  kunnen  vallen  en  de  [g]  is  (als  begin  media)  stem- 
loos.  En... kan  dus  onder  die  nadruk  semi-fortis,  of  fortis  en  zelfs  tenuis 
worden.'  Two  things  will  be  noticed  here:  (1)  The  behaviour  of  the 
vocal  chords  is  made  to  depend  directly  on  the  expiration.  (2)  A 
decrease  in  expiratory  force  is  made  to  accomplish  two  different  things : 
(a)  In  sentence  1,  a  continuous  decrease  does  not  allow  the  vocal  chords 
to  assume  the  position  of  rest,  whereas  (6)  a  transitory  decrease  produces 
this  effect  in  sentence  3.  Hardly  anyone,  I  think,  will  find  with 
Mr  Logeman  that  the  phenomena  of  voicing  and  unvoicing  are  rendered 
any  clearer  by  this  form  of  explanation. 

In  the  application  of  this  theory  Mr  Logeman  does  not  fail  to  fall 
into  contradictory  statements.  It  is  obvious  that,  in  the  case  of  what  is 
now  known  as  Verner's  Law  in  English1,  the  conditions  which  led  to 
the  voicing  of  originally  voiceless  sounds  are  precisely  those  which 
according  to  his  theory  ought  to  have  preserved  them  voiceless,  since 
word  stress  and  musical  accent  fall  together  behind  the  spirant;  cp. 
above.  Mr  Logeman  actually  mentions  (§  68)  some  cases2  which  belong 
here,  and  makes  in  regard  to  them  the,  under  the  circumstances,  some- 
what astonishing  remark  :  'Alles  draagt  er  toe  bij  om  hier  een  stemheb- 
bende media  te  voorschijn  te  roepen '  (italics  mine).  After  this  we  are 
not  surprised  to  read  in  §  137  'Interessant  was:  [~ua_zeg  |~dy]  (i.e. 
in  a  case  of  the  same  order  as  that  just  mentioned,  where  we  should 

1  See  Note  at  end.  2  E.g.,  anxiety  etc. 


Reviews  561 

expect  according  to  the  author's  accent  theory  a  voiceless  sound,  but 
find  a  voiced  one.  Notice  the  explanation :)  voor :  Wat  zegt  U  ?  Man 
zal  opmerken  dat  wij  hier  een  uit  de  t  van  [-Ze9t-  y]  ontstane  geredu- 
ceerde  d,  [~\  zegd  y]  voor  ons  hebben  die  onder  langzaam  stijgend 
chromatics  aksent  tot  [d]  geworden  is  of  liever  [d']  gebleven  is  onder 
nadruk.'  The  author's  method  is  evidently  to  explain  each  example  by 
itself,  quite  careless  of  the  eventuality  that  two  examples,  which  seem 
to  the  ordinary  observer  to  be  alike,  may  thus  each  receive  a  different 
explanation.  A  consequence  of  this  is  that  the  important  factor  of  the 
relative  frequency  of  occurrence  of  his  examples,  and  of  the  relation 
between  the  sporadic  and  the  regular  transitions  in  any  language  is  left 
quite  untouched.  It  is  sufficient  for  the  author  that  an  isolated  example 
'  illustreert  't  prinsiepe ' ;  no  attempt  is  however  made  to  delimit  the 
sphere  of  influence  of  different  principles  when  they  come  in  conflict 
with  each  other.  Mr  Logeman  presents  his  readers  indeed  with 
principles  in  the  abstract,  but  as  to  when  and  why  they  come  of 
necessity  into  action  he  leaves  us  quite  in  the  dark. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  the  author  in  the  application  of  this 
accent  theory  to  various  languages,  in  all  of  which  he  finds  to  his  own 
satisfaction  instances  of  its  action.  I  will  therefore  at  once  sum  up  his 
results : 

(1)  When  stress  and  chromatic  accent  fall  together  before  a  stop 
or   spirant,   (a)   a   voiced   Media   remains  voiced   in    the   mid-sound ; 
(6)  a  voiceless  Tenuis  becomes  a  voiced  Tenuis  and  may  become  a 
voiced  Media. 

(2)  When  stress  and  chromatic  accent  do  not  fall  together  but 
on  successive  syllables  and  a  spirant  or  stop  stands  between :  (a)  a 
voiced  Media  becomes  unvoiced  and  may  become  a  Tenuis ;  (6)  a  voiceless 
Tenuis  remains  voiceless. 

(3)  When  stress  and  voice  fall  together  after  a  stop  or  spirant,  the 
result  is  the  same  as  in  (2). 

The  worthlessness  of  these  results  is  clear  enough  probably  from  the 
foregoing.  For  Mr  Logeman  they  are  however  scientific  verities,  and 
he  proceeds  in  his  Appendix  to  apply  them  to  the  explanation  of  Verner's 
Law.  I  do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  follow  Mr  Logeman  through  the 
mazes  of  his  Appendix.  It  will,  I  think,  be  obvious  to  every  one  but  the 
author  himself,  that  the  accent  principle  he  wishes  to  apply  is  the  direct 
opposite  of  that  involved  in  Verner's  Law,  just  as  in  the  parallel  cases 
in  English  (see  above,  p.  560).  The  case  lies  as  follows :  Verner's  Law 
states  in  its  usual  formulation  that  Indo-European  voiceless  stops  are 
represented  in  primitive  Germanic  by  voiceless  or  voiced  spirants  (which 
latter  of  course  generally  become  later  voiced  stops)  according  to  the 
position  of  the  original  (chromatic)  accent.  Mr  Logeman  rejects  the 
necessity  of  voiceless  spirants  as  '  Zwischenstufen,'  and  holds  that 
under  Verner's  Law  the  original  voiceless  stops  were  exchanged  at  once 
for  voiced  stops  under  the  accentual  conditions  of  the  Law.  This  is 
certainly  false,  but  the  critic  can  afford  to  give  our  author  plenty  of 
rope  at  this  point.  That  is  to  say  in  Mr  Logeman's  terminology,  the 

M.  L.  R.  iv.  36 


562  Reviews 

original  Indo-European  Tenues  were  exchanged  under  Verner's  Law  for 
Mediae.  Mr  Logeman  now  wishes  to  elucidate  this  state  of  affairs  from 
modern  analogies.  He  believes  he  has  found  such  analogies  in  the 
modern  languages  examined  in  his  book.  He  therefore  wishes  to  apply 
the  examples  in  which  he  has  discovered  a  variation  between  original 
Tenuis  and  Media  in  modern  times  to  the  explanation  of  Verner's  Law : 
in  other  words  he  wishes  to  apply  the  results  just  given  above  for  this 
purpose.  A  typical  example  for  the  law  thus  formulated  is  the  double 
form  according  to  Mr  Logeman  of  the  Dutch  word  'better,'  namely 
~j  bedar  and  j  be~tar.  Now  to  establish  an  analogy  Mr  Logeman 
must  know  the  position  of  both  the  stress  and  the  musical  accent, 
since  his  law  is  stated  in  terms  of  both.  But  all  that  Mr  Logeman 
Knows  or  can  know  for  certain  is  the  position  of  the  original  musical 
accent.  He  is  plainly  not  at  liberty  to  conclude  that  this  was  the 
same  as  that  of  the  stress,  and  it  would  not  help  him  if  he  could. 
Obviously  therefore  the  analogy  between  the  historic  case  and  the 
modern  is  doomed,  to  begin  with,  to  be  imperfect  in  this  respect.  Again 
in  the  typical  modern  example  for  a  preserved  Tenuis,  the  musical  accent 
follows  it :  but  it  was  only  when  the  original  position  of  the  musical 
accent  was  before  the  consonant,  that  in  Germanic  the  Tenuis  was  pre- 
served (still  adhering  to  Mr  Logeman's  terminology).  It  is  quite  obvious 
therefore  that  the  actual  facts  given  by  Verner's  Law  are  not  analogous 
to  Mr  Logeman's  modern  examples.  He  wishes  to  apply  an  analogy 
where  none  exists.  The  following  reflection  makes  this  even  more 
obvious :  if  by  means  of  Mr  Logeman's  generalisation  we  tried  to 
deduce  the  originals  of  Gothic  fadar,  brofyar  we  should  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  they  were  ~]  pater  and  bhra :  ~  ter  or  |  bhra :  ~  ter,  not 
one  of  which  agrees  with  the  actual  forms.  The  absurdities  into 
which  Mr  Logeman  is  plunged  by  his  false  premisses  are  almost 
incredible.  But  Mr  Logeman  'does  not  mind  trouble.'  He  has  the 
courage  '  to  take  arms  against  a  sea  of  troubles '  and  the  hopeful  dis- 
position which  believes  that  mere  opposition  will  end  them.  There 
is  no  analogy  such  as  Mr  Logeman  wishes,  but  not  at  all  dismayed  by 
this,  he  proceeds  to  manufacture  one.  If  the  given  facts  do  not  suit  his 
hypothesis  of  an  analogy  they  must  be  changed  so  as  to  suit.  Therefore 
Mr  Logeman  assumes  that  the  given  accent  changed  to  forms  which 
were  analogous  to  his  principle.  He  fixes  his  attention  on  the  con- 
venient dissyllabic  forms  and  asks  us  to  believe  the  following  complicated, 
and  purely  ad  hoc  assumptions:  (1)  That  when  the  original  musical 
accent  was  on  the  first,  the  stress  was  on  the  second  syllable  and  vice 
versd.  (2)  That  afterwards  musical  accent  and  stress  fell  together  on 
the  same  syllable,  and  (3)  they  fell  together  on  the  first  syllable  when 
the  original  musical  accent  had  been  on  the  second,  but  on  the  second 
when  the  original  musical  accent  had  been  on  the  first.  Thus  for  his 
pair  ~|  bedar  and  j  be  ~ tar  Mr  Logeman  constructs  a  quite  hypothetical 
analogous  pair  ~|  pater  and  bhra  :  ~|  ter  out  of  absolutely  non-analogous 
pater  and  bhra  ter.  (It  must  be  remarked  that  Mr  Logeman  does  not 
use  Indo-European  forms,  probably  because  he  considers  them  too 


Reviews  563 

hypothetical ;  but  I  have  introduced  pater  and  bhrater  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  philological  reader,  instead  of  the  Greek  forms  which 
he  cites.)  Comment  is  superfluous.  And  yet  even  supposing  that 
these  entirely  unsuccessful  efforts  of  Mr  Logeman's  to  construct  an 
analogy  out  of  nothing,  had  been  successful  so  far  as  they  went — 
supposing  this  impossibility  for  one  moment — he  would  in  fact  still  be 
as  far  off  from  a  full  analogy  as  ever,  as  will  appear  from  the  following. 
The  accent  principle  constructed  by  Mr  Logeman  in  the  first  part  of  his 
book  applies  equally  to  Mediae  and  Tenues,  it  produces  not  merely  a 
variation  between  original  Tenues  and  Mediae,  but  also  between  original 
Mediae  and  Tenues.  Now  Verner's  Law  only  deals  with  original  Tenues 
— there  is  no  trace  of  a  similar  variation  in  the  case  of  original  Mediae. 
Original  6,  d,  g,  became  without  exception  p,  t,  k  in  Germanic,  whereas 
according  to  Mr  Logeman's  theory  we  should  have  expected  the  Media 
to  be  preserved  under  certain  factors  of  accent,  just  as  in  modern  Danish, 
which  Mr  Logeman  claims  (§  275)  as  a  special  analogy  to  this  act  of  the 
first  shifting,  the  Mediae  are,  according  to  him,  still  preserved  when 
the  accent  favours  it  (see  above). 

It  is  a  pity  that  Mr  Logeman  did  not  accept  the  well-meant 
warning  of  his  friend  Dr  N.  on  the  subject  of  Verner's  Law,  which 
warning  he  open-heartedly  communicates  to  the  public  in  his  foot-notes. 
In  full  consciousness  of  the  possession  of  a  '  revolutionary'  theory  he  set 
out,  as  he  himself  hints,  to  revolutionise  the  whole  science  of  com- 
parative philology.  A  revolutionary,  however,  whose  ideas  do  not 
succeed,  makes  himself  ridiculous.  Those  who  wish  to  take  Mr  Loge- 
man seriously  would  be  well  advised  not  to  read  his  Appendix.  So 
long  as  Mr  Logeman  refrains  from  historical  discussions,  his  varied 
acquaintance  with  phonetical  literature,  and  the  wide  field  of  observa- 
tion which  he  commands  in  modern  languages,  make  him  an  entertaining 
and  stimulating  writer.  Not  that  Mr  Logeman  is  altogether  to  be 
trusted  as  an  observer  of  living  phenomena.  How  can  he  who  asserts 
repeatedly  that  the  '  Blahlaut '  must  be  inaudible,  and  that  a  voiced 
Tenuis  is  acoustically  the  same  as  a  voiceless  one, — how  can  such  a 
writer  profess  to  distinguish  by  means  of  his  ear,  if  and  when  a  Tenuis 
is  voiced  ? 

R.  A.  WILLIAMS. 
DUBLIN. 


NOTE.  On  the  parallel  between  certain  phenomena  in  Modern 
English  and  those  of  Verner's  Law,  referred  to  above,  p.  560,  see  my  article 
in  the  Modern  Language  Review,  II,  p.  232  ff.  I  take  this  opportunity 
of  making  a  necessary  correction.  The  first  to  draw  attention  to  '  Verner's 
Law  in  English '  was  the  well-known  Danish  scholar,  O.  Jespersen  (in 
his  Studier  over  Engelske  Casus),  not  Dr  Sweet,  as  I  erroneously  stated 
in  that  article. 


36—2 


NEW  PUBLICATIONS. 


December,   1908 — May,  1909. 

GENERAL. 

BRUGMANN,  K.  und  B.  DELBRUCK,  Grundriss  der  vergleichenden  Grammatik 
der  indogermanischen  Sprachen.  2.  Bearbeitung.  n,  ii,  1.  Lieferung. 
Strassburg,  Triibner.  11  M. 

FICK,  A.,  Vergleichendes  Worterbuch  der  indogermanischen  Sprachen.  4.  Aufl. 
von  A.  Bezzenberger.  in.  Teil  von  A.  Torp.  Gottingen,  Vandenhoeck 
und  Ruprecht.  14  M. 

MuszKAT-MuszKOWSKi,  J.,  Spartacus.  Eine  Stoffgeschichte.  Leipzig,  Xenien- 
Verlag.  4  M. 

ROUSSELOT,  P.  J.,  Principes  de  phonetique  experimentale.  2  vols.  Paris, 
Welter.  60  fr. 

SMITH,  D.  NICOL,  The  Functions  of  Criticism.  A  Lecture.  London,  Frowde. 
\s.  net. 

SPINGARN,  J.  E.,  A  History  of  Literary  Criticism  in  the  Renaissance.  2nd  ed. 
New  York,  Columbia  University  Press.  1  dol.  50. 

STERZENBACH,  TH.,  Ursprung  und  Entwicklung  der  Sage  vom  heiligen  Gral. 
(Forschungeri  und  Funde,  n.)  Miinster,  Aschendorff.  1  M.  25. 

TRAUBE,  L.,  Vorlesungen  und  Abhandlungen.  Herausg.  von  F.  Boll.  i.  Zur 
Palaographie  und  Handschriftenkunde.  Herausg.  von  P.  Lehmann. 
Munich,  C.  H.  Beck.  15  M. 

WARREN,  T.  H.,  Essays  of  Poets  and  Poetry,  Ancient  and  Modern.  London, 
Murray.  10s.  6d.  net. 


ROMANCE   LANGUAGES. 

Bibliotheca  romanica.  66,  Boccaccio,  Decameron,  v ;  67 — 70,  Pascal,  Les 
Provinciales.  Strassburg,  J.  H.  E.  Heitz.  Each  no.  40  pf. 

HINNEBERG,  P.,  Die  Kultur  der  Gegenwart.  i,  xi,  1.  Die  romanischen 
Literaturen  und  Sprachen  mit  Einschluss  des  Keltischen.  Von  H.  Zimmer, 
K.  Meyer,  L.  C.  Stern,  H.  Morf,W.  Meyer- Liibke.  Leipzig,  Teubner.  12  M. 

Philologische  und  volkskundliche  Arbeiten  Karl  Vollmoller  zum  16.  Oktober 
1908  dargeboten.  Herausg.  von  K.  Reuschel  und  K.  Gruber.  Erlangen, 
Junge.  15  M. 


New  Publications  565 

Latin. 

(Ind.  Humanism.} 

BECKER,  J.,  Textgeschichte  Liudprands  von  Cremona.  (Quellen  und  Unter- 
suchungen  zur  lateinischen  Philologie  des  Mittelalters,  in,  2.)  Munich, 
C.  H.  Beck.  2  M.  50. 

BOULTING,  W.,  Aeneas  Silvius  (Enea  Silvio  de'  Piccolomini,  Pius  II).  Orator, 
Man  of  Letters,  Statesman  and  Pope.  London,  Constable.  12s.  6d.  net. 

LOEW,  E.  A.,  Die  altesten  Kalendarien  aus  Monte  Cassiho,  herausgegeben  und 
untersucht.  (Quellen  und  Untersuchungeri  zur  lat.  Phil,  des  Mittelalters, 
in,  3.)  Munich,  C.  H.  Beck.  6  M. 

MERKER,  P.,  Simon  Lemnius.  Ein  Humanistenleben.  (Quellen  und  Forschungen, 
civ.)  Strassburg,  Trubner.  3  M. 

MEYER,  W.,  Die  Arundel-Sammlung  mittellateinischer  Lieder.  (Abhandlungen 
der  kgl.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften  zu  Gottingen,  xi,  2.)  Berlin, 
Weidmann.  3  M.  50. 

NEFF,  K.,  Gedichte  des  Paulus  Diaconus.  Kritische  Ausgabe.  (Quellen  und 
Untersuchungen  zur  lat.  Phil,  des  Mittelalters,  in,  4.)  Munich,  C.  H.  Beck. 
10  M. 

SCHROETER,  A.,  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  neulateinischen  Poesie  Deutschlands 
und  Hollands.  (Palaestra,  LXXVII.)  Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller.  9  M. 

Silviae  vel  potius  Aetheriae  peregrinatio  ad  loca  sancta.  Herausg.  von  W. 
Heraeus.  (Sarnmlung  vulgarlateinischer  Texte,  I.)  Heidelberg,  Winter. 
1  M.  20. 

Italian. 

BATTOCCHIO,  G.,  Le  poesie  liriche  di  G.  Giusti.  Con  introduzione  e  appendice. 
Feltre,  Zanussi.  1  L.  50. 

BELTRAMI,  P.,  Maghinardo  Pagani  da  Susinana.  Commento  sopra  due  luoghi 
della  Divina  Commedia.  Faenza.  2  L. 

BOERI,  A.,  Studl  foscoliani  :  Ugo  Foscolo  e  la  Bibbia.  Ugo  Foscolo  storico. 
Palermo,  Reber.  1  L.  50. 

CARDUCCI,  G.,  Cavalleria  e  umanesimo.     Bologna,  Zanichelli.     4  L. 

DANTE  ALIGHIERI,  La  Divina  Commedia.  Edited  and  annotated  by  C.  H. 
Grandgent.  Vol.  i.  Inferno.  Boston,  D.  C.  Heath.  1  dol.  25. 

DANTE  ALIGHIERI,  The  Divine  Comedy.  Translated  by  E.  Wilberforce.  3  vols. 
London,  Macmillan.  10s.  6d.  net. 

FEDERICI,  E.,  Due  esamazioni  delle  opere  teatrale  di  Camillo  Federici  da 
Garessio,  per  cura  di  E.  Federici.  Venice,  Tip.  Emiliana.  3  L. 

FERRI,  F.,  La  poesia  popolare  in  Antonio  Pucci.     Bologna,  Beltrami.     4  L. 
FILOMUSI,  G.  L.,  Studl  su  Dante.     Cittk  di  Castello.     5  L. 

GRASHEY,  L.,  Giacinto  Andrea  Cicogninis  Leben  und  Werke.  (Miinchener 
Beitrage  zur  roman.  und  engl.  Phil.,  XLIII.)  Leipzig,  Deichert.  3  M.  50. 

LEVI,  T.,  Francesco  di  Vanozzo  e  la  lirica  nelle  Corti  lombarde  durante  la 
seconda  meta  del  secolo  xiv.  Rome,  E.  Loescher.  20  L. 

MACHIAVELLI,  N.,  Opere  poetiche,  con  introduzione  e  note  di  G.  Gigli.  (Biblioteca 
Nazionale.)  Florence,  Le  Monnier.  2  L.  50. 


566  New  Publications 

Novella  di  Paganino  e  di  Messer  Ricciardo.  Metrische  Bearbeitung  einer 
Novelle  Boccaccios.  Faksimile  eines  um  1500  wohl  in  Florenz  hergestellten 
Druckes  im  Besitze  der  kgl.  Universitatsbibliothek  in  Erlangen.  Erlangen, 
M.  Mencke.  2.  M. 

POLETTO,  G.,  La  santa  Scrittura  nelle  opere  e  nel  pensiero  di  Dante  Alighieri. 
Siena,  S.  Bernardino.  4  L. 

READE,  W.  H.  V.,  The  Moral  System  of  Dante's  Inferno.  London,  Frowde. 
12s.  6d.  net. 

TOYNBEE,  PAGET,  Dante  in  English  Literature.  From  Chaucer  to  Gary.  2  vols. 
London,  Methuen.  21*.  net. 

VERNON,  W.  W.,  Readings  in  the  Paradiso  of  Dante.  Chiefly  based  on  the 
Commentary  of  Benvenuto  da  Imola.  2nd  ed.  2  vols.  London,  Methuen. 
15s.  net. 

VOSSLER,  K.,  Die  gbttliche  Komodie.  Entwicklungsgeschichte  und  Erklaruug. 
n,  1.  Die  literarische  Entwicklungsgeschichte.  Heidelberg,  C.  Winter. 
5  M. 

Provencal. 

GIRADT  DE  BORNELH,  Samtliche  Lieder.  Mit  tJbersetzung,  Kommentar  und 
Glossar.  Herausg.  von  A.  Kolsen.  I,  3.  Halle,  Niemeyer.  3  M.  60. 

Spanish. 

ARTEAGA  Y  PEREIRA,  F.  de,  Nine  Spanish  Poems,  collected  by.  London, 
Frowde,  Is.  net. 

CLARKE,  H.  B.,  Spanish  Literature.  An  Elementary  Handbook.  London, 
Sonnenschein.  6s. 

COTARELO.  Migajas  del  Ingenio.  Colecci6n  rarfsima  de  entremeses,  bailes  y 
loas  reimpresa  con  pr61ogo  y  notas.  Madrid,  Imp.  de  la  '  Rev.  de  Archiv.' 

GONZALEZ-BLANCO,  A.,  Historia  de  la  Novela  en  Espana  desde  el  Romanticismo 
a  nuestros  dfas.  Madrid,  Saenz  de  Jubera. 

GRANADA,  L.  DE,  Obras.  Edicidn  crftica  y  completa  por  Fr.  J.  Cuervo. 
Tomos  v — ix.  Madrid,  Fuentenebro. 

KLAUSNER,  G.,  Die  drei  Diamanten  des  Lope  de  Vega  und  die  schone  Mageloue. 
(Literarhistorische  Forschungen,  39.)  Berlin,  Felber.  3  M.  50. 

MEN^NDEZ  PIDAL,  R.,  Cantar  de  Mio  Cid.  Texto,  Gramatica  y  Vocabulario.  I. 
Madrid,  Bailly-Bailliere. 

RoDRfGDEZ  VILLA,  A.,  Cronicas  del  Gran  Capitan.  (Nueva  Biblioteca  de  Autores 
espanoles,  x.)  Madrid,  Bailly-Bailliere. 

PEREDA,  J.  M.  de,  Pedro  Sanchez.  With  Introduction,  Notes  and  Vocabulary 
by  R.  E.  Bassett.  Boston,  Giiin. 

French. 

(a)     General  (incl.  Language). 

BERTHON,  H.  E.  et  V.  G.  STARKEY,  Tables  synoptiques  de  Phonologic  de 
1'ancien  Fran§ais.  London,  Frowde.  3s.  §d.  net. 

ESPE,  H.,  Die  Interjektionen  im  Altfranzosischen.     Berlin,  Trenkel.     3  M. 

Melanges  Havet.  Philologie  et  linguistique,  melanges  ofierts  a  L.  Havet  par 
ses  ancieng  eleves  et  ses  amis.  Paris,  Hachette.  20  fr. 


New  Publications  567 

MEYER-LUBKE,  W.,  Historische  Grammatik  der  franzosischen  Sprache.  I. 
Laut-  und  Flexionslehre.  (Sanimlung  romanischer  Elemental*-  und  Hand- 
biicher,  I,  2.)  Heidelberg,  C.  Winter.  6  M. 

VEERIER,  A.  J.  et  R.  ONILLON,  Glossaire  e"tymologique  et  historique  des  patois 
et  des  parlers  de  1'Anjou.  2  tomes.  Paris,  Grassin.  25  fr. 

WILMOTTE,  M.,  Etudes  critiques  sur  la  tradition  litteraire  en  France.  Paris, 
H.  Champion.  3  fr.  50. 

(6)     Old  French. 

Alexis,  La  Vie  de  Saint.  Poeme  du  xie  siecle.  Texte  critique  par  G.  Paris. 
Nouv.  edition.  Paris,  Champion.  1  fr.  50. 

AUBRY,  G.,  Trouveres  et  troubadours.     Paris,  F.  Alcan.     3  fr.  50. 

BORODINE,  M.,  La  femme  et  1'amour  au  xne  siecle,  d'apres  les  poemes  de 
Chretien  de  Troyes.  Paris,  Picard.  5  fr. 

BROCKSTEDT,  G.,  Das  altfranzosische  Siegfriedlied.  Eine  Rekonstruktion.  Kiel, 
R.  Cordes.  8  M. 

GELZER,  H.,  Einleitung  zu  einer  kritischen  Ausgabe  des  altfranzosischen 
Yderromans  (Diss.).  Halle,  Waisenhaus. 

PISAN,  CHRISTINE  DE,  The  Book  of  the  Duke  of  True  Lovers.  Translated  into 
English.  (King's  Classics.)  London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  Is.  Gd.  net. 

(c)     Modern  French. 

ARNARVON,  J.,  Tartuffe.  Etude  sur  la  mise  en  scene  et  la  tradition.  Paris, 
Ollendorff.  3  fr.  50. 

BASTIER,  P.,  Victor  Hugo  und  seine  Zeit.  Eine  Einfiihrung  in  das  Studium 
des  Dichters.  Leipzig,  Xenien-Verlag.  3  M.  50. 

BE'RANGER,  P.  J.  DE,  CEuvres  inedites.     Paris,  Daragon.     8  fr. 

BOSSUET,  Correspondance.  Nouv.  dd.  avec  lettres  inedites  publiee  par  Ch. 
Urbain  et  E.  Levesque.  Tome  I  (1651-76).  Paris,  Hachette.  7  fr.  50. 

BRANDES,  G.,  Voltaire  in  seiuem  Verhaltnis  zu  Friedrich  dem  Grossen  und 
J.  J.  Rousseau.  Berlin,  Marquardt.  3  M. 

BRUN,  P.,  Savinien  de  Cyrano  de  Bergerac,  gentilhomme  parisien.  L'histoire 
et  la  legende.  Paris,  H.  Daragon.  12  fr. 

BRDNETIERE,  F.,  Histoire  de  la  litterature  fran§aise  classique.  i.  De  Marot  a 
Montaigne.  Paris,  Ch.  Delagrave.  7  fr.  50. 

BUFFENOIR,  H.,  Le  prestige  de  J.  J.  Rousseau.     Paris,  E.  Paul.     7  fr.  50. 

CLAR&TIE,  L.,  Histoire  de  la  litterature  frangaise.  Tome  iv.  Le  dix-neuvieme 
siecle.  Paris,  Ollendorff.  7  fr.  50. 

COR,  R.,  Anatole  France  et  la  pense"e  contemporaine.     Paris,  Pelletan.     5  fr. 

CRISENOY,  P.  de,  Essai  sur  J.  A.  Barbey  d'Aurevilley.  Paris,  Bibl.  des 
entretiens  idealistes.  2  fr.  50. 

GUSHING,  M.  G.,  Pierre  Le  Tourneur.  (Columbia  Univ.  Studies  in  Romance 
Philology  and  Literature.)  New  York,  Macmillan.  1  dol.  50. 

DESCHARMES,  R.,  Flaubert,  sa  vie,  son  caractere  et  ses  idees  avant  1857.  Paris, 
Ferroud.  6  fr. 

DORNIS,  J.,  Essai  sur  Leconte  de  Lisle.     Paris,  Ollendorff.     3  fr.  50. 

DOUMIC,  R.,  George  Sand.  Dix  conferences  sur  sa  vie  et  son  ceuvre.  Paris, 
Perrin.  3  fr.  50. 


568  New  Publications 

DUFAY,  P.,  Victor  Hugo  a  vingt  ans,  glanes  romantiques.  Paris,  Mercure  de 
France.  3  fr.  50. 

ETTLINGER,  T.,  Benjamin  Constant.     Berlin,  Fleischel.     5  M.   " 

FURETIERE,  A.,  The  Poe"sies  Diverses.  A  Partial  Reprint  from  the  Edition  of 
1604  edited  by  I.  Bronk.  New  York,  Stechert.  1  dol.  75. 

GUNNELL,  D.,  Stendhal  et  1'Angleterre.     Paris,  C.  Bosse.     6.  fr. 

HARPER,  G.  M.,  C.  A.  Sainte-Beuve.     (French  Men  of  Letters.)     Philadelphia. 

1  dol.  50  net. 

KLATT,  W.,  Molieres  Beziehungen  zum  Hirtendrama.  Mit  einer  Vorstudie : 
Haupttypen  der  Hirtendichtung  vor  Moliere.  Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller. 
4  M.  50. 

KUCHLER,  W.,  Franzosische  Romantik.     Heidelberg,  C.  Winter.     2  M. 
LABONNE,  Le  sixieme  livre  de  Rabelais.     Paris,  G.  Ficker.     3  fr.  50. 
LAFENESTRE,  G.,  Moliere.  (Les  grands  ecrivains  frangais.)  Paris,  Hachette.   2  fr. 

LANSON,  G.,  Manuel  bibliographique  de  la  litte"rature  franQaise  rnoderne. 
Fasc.  i.  xvie  siecle.  Paris,  Hachette.  4  fr. 

LEPELLETIER,  E.,  Einile  Zola.  Sa  vie,  son  ceuvre.  Paris,  Mercure  de  France. 
7  fr.  50. 

LEPELLETIER,  E.,  Paul  Verlaine,  his  Life,  his  Work.  Transl.  by  E.  M.  Lang. 
London,  Laurie.  21s.  net. 

MAHN,  P.,  Guy  de  Maupassant,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke.  Berlin, 
E.  Fleischel.  8  M. 

MAROT,  C.,  GSuvres  choisies,  notes  et  glossaire  par  E.  Voizard.  Paris,  Gamier. 
3  fr.  50. 

MASSON,  P.  M.,  Fenelon  et  Mme  Guyon.     Paris,  Hachette.     3  fr.  50. 

MONTAIGNE,  M.  DE,  Essais.  Publ.  par  F.  Strowski.  Tome  n.  Paris,  Champion. 
25  fr. 

MONTAIGNE,  M.  DE,  Essays  done  into  English  by  J.  Florio.  Introd.  by  Th. 
Seccombe.  3  vols.  London,  Richards.  31*.  6d.  net. 

MCSSET,  A.  DE,  ffiuvres  completes.  Notes  par  E.  Eire*,  iv,  vi.  Paris,  Gamier 
freres.  Each  3  fr.  50. 

PONS,  A.  A.,  J.  J.  Rousseau  et  le  theatre.     Geneva,  Jullien.     5  fr.  50. 

Prisonnier  (Le)  desconforte"  du  chateau  de  Loches.  Poeme  ine"dit  du  xve  siecle. 
Introduction,  notes  et  glossaire  par  P.  Champion.  Paris,  Champion.  5  fr. 

RETINGER,  J.  H.,  Le  conte  fantastique  dans  le  romantisme  fran9ais.  Paris, 
B.  Grasset.  2  fr. 

RUDLER,  G.,  La  jeunesse  de  B.  Constant  (1767-94).     Paris,  Colin.     10  fr. 

RUDLER,  G.,  Bibliographic  critique  des  ceuvres  de  B.  Constant.  Paris,  Colin, 
3  fr.  50. 

SCHOEN,  H.,  F.  Coppe'e.     L'homme  et  le  poete,  1842-1908.     Paris,  Fischbacher. 

2  fr. 

SECHE,  L.,  Etudes  d'histoire  romantique.  Le  c6nacle  de  la  muse  fran9aise 
(1823-27).  Paris,  Mercure  de  France.  3  fr.  50. 

STENDHAL,  Correspondance  (1800-42).    Publiee  par  A.  Paupe  et  P.  A.  Cheramy. 

3  vols.     Paris,  C.  Bosse.     20  fr. 


New  Publications  569 

VIANEY,  J.,  Le  petrarquisme  en  France  au  xvie  siecle.  Montpellier,  Coulet  et 
fils.  8  fr. 

VIRELY,  A.,  R.  C.  Guilbert  de  Pixere'court.     Paris,  E.  Ralier.     10  fr. 

VOLTAIRE,  Lettres  philosophiques.  Introduction  par  G.  Lauson.  I.  Paris, 
Comply.  5  fr. 

GERMANIC  LANGUAGES. 

GOLTHER,  W.,  Religion  und  Mythus  der  Germanen.  Leipzig,  Verlag  Deutsche 
Zukunft.  4  M. 

Gothic. 

FEIST,  S.,  Etymologisches  Worterbuch  der  gotischen  Sprache.  i.  Teil  (A — M). 
Halle,  Niemeyer.  6  M. 

Dutch  and  Low  German. 

ALBERDINGK  THYM,  J.  A.,  Werken.  Verzameld  en  gerangschikt  met  inleiding 
en  overzicht  door  J.  F.  M.  Sterck.  ix.  Amsterdam,  C.  L.  van  Langenhuysen. 
2  fl.  90. 

DYSERINCK,  J.,  Fr.  Haverschmidt  (Piet  Paaltjens).  Schiedam,  H.  A.  M.  Roelants. 
2  fl.  50. 

PETSCH,  R.,  Theophilus.  Mittelniederdeutsches  Drama  in  drei  Fassungen. 
(Untersuchungen  und  Texte,  n.)  Heidelberg,  Winter.  2  M. 

Scandinavian. 

ANDERSEN,  V.,  Tider  og  Typer  af  dansk  Aands  Historic.  I.  Humanisme. 
1.  Erasmus,  ii.  Copenhagen,  Gyldendal.  6  kr. 

BAGGESEN,  J.,  Labyrinten,  ved  Louis  Bobe.  (Mindesmserker  af  Danmarks 
Nationallitteratur,  n.)  Copenhagen,  Gyldendal.  3  kr. 

ESSWEIN,  H.,  A.  Strindberg  im  Lichte  seines  Lebens  und  seiner  Werke. 
Munich,  G.  Miiller.  4  M. 

MOSES,  M.  J.,  H.  Ibsen,  the  Man  and  his  Plays.  New  York,  Mitchell 
Kennerley.  1  dol.  50  net. 

OLRIK,  A.,  Nordisches  Geistesleben  in  heidnischer  und  frlihchristlicher  Zeit. 
Ubertragen  von  W.  Ranisch.  (Germanische  Bibliothek,  I,  v,  1.)  Heidelberg, 
C.  Winter.  5  M. 

PAASCHE,  F.,  Ibsens  Gildet  paa  Solhaug.  (Smaaskrifter  fra  det  litteratur- 
historiske  Seminar,  v.)  Christiania,  Aschehoug.  1  kr.  75. 

piSriks  Saga  af  Bern.  Udg.  for  Samfund  til  Udgivelse  af  gammel  nordisk 
Litteratur  ved  H.  Bertelsen.  3.  Haefte.  Copenhagen,  Gyldendal.  2  kr.  50. 

TROYE,  V.,  H.  Wergeland  i  hans  digtning.  Udgivet  ved  H.  Eitrem.  Christiania, 
Cammermeyer.  5  kr. 

UDDGREN,  G.,  A.  Strindberg.  Borjan  till  en  biografi.  Goteborg,  Aahlen  och 
Aakerluud.  2  kr.  75. 

VEDEL,  V.,  Holger  Drachmann.     Copenhagen,  Schonberg.     1  kr.  50. 

Volsunga  Saga  ok  Ragnars  Saga  LotJbr<5kar.  Udg.  for  Samfund  til  Udgivelse 
af  gammel  nordisk  Litteratur  ved  M.  Olsen.  3.  Hsefte.  Copenhagen, 
Gyldendal.  2  kr.  50. 

Voluspa.  Done  into  English  out  of  the  Icelandic  of  the  Elder  Edda  by 
A.  K.  Coomaraswamy.  London,  D.  Nutt.  2s.  6d.  net. 

WIMMER,  L.  F.  A.,  De  danske  Kune  rnindesmserker,  unders0gte  og  tolkede. 
iv,  ii.  Copenhagen,  Gyldendal.  15  kr. 


570  New  Publications 

English. 

(a)  General  (incl.  Language). 

BODTKER,  A.  T.,  Critical  Contributions  to  Early  English  Syntax.  First  Series. 
(Videnskabs-Selsk.  Skrifter,  n  Hist.  Filos.  Klasse  1908,  No.  6.)  Christiania, 
Dybwad.  1  kr.  20. 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  Edited  by  S.  Lee.  Vols.  x-xiv.  London, 
Smith,  Elder.  Each  15s.  net 

JESPERSEN,  0.,  Storre  engelsk  Grammatik  paa  historisk  Grundlag.  i.  Lyd  og 
Skrift.  Copenhagen,  Gyldendal.  4  kr.  50. 

JOST,  K.,  Beon  und  Wesan,  eine  syntaktische  Untersuchung.  (Anglistische 
Forschungen,  xxvi.)  Heidelberg,  Winter.  3  M.  60. 

KLUMP,  W.,  Die  altenglischen  Handwerkernamen  sachlich  und  sprachlich 
erlautert.  (Anglistische  Forschungen,  xxiv.)  Heidelberg,  Winter.  3  M.  40. 

METZGER,  E.,  Zur  Betonung  der  lateinisch-romischen  Worter  im  Neuenglischen 
mit  besonderer  Beriicksichtigung  der  Zeit  von  ca.  1560  bis  ca.  1660. 
(Anglistische  Forschungen,  xxv.)  Heidelberg,  Winter.  2  M. 

MORRIS,  J.,  Organic  History  of  English  Words,  i.  Old  English.  Strassburg, 
Trubner.  3  M. 

VERRIER,  P.,  Essai  sur  les  principes  de  la  metrique  anglaise.  Paris,  Welter. 
30  fr. 

(b)  Old  and  Middle  English. 

DODD,  L.  H.,  A  Glossary  of  Wulfstan's  Homilies.  (Yale  Studies  in  English.) 
New  York,  Henry  Holt.  1  dol.  net. 

GONSER,  P.,  Das  angelsachsische  Prosa-Leben  des  hi.  Gnthlac.  Mit  Ein- 
leitung,  Anmerkungen  und  Miuiaturen.  (Anglistische  Forschungen,  xxvu.) 
Heidelberg,  C.  Winter.  6  M. 

GCMMERE,  F.  B.,  The  Oldest  English  Epic.  Translated  into  the  original  metres 
with  Introduction  and  Notes.  New  York.  Macmillan.  1  dol.  10  net. 

SCHUCK,  H.,  Studier  i  Beowulfsagan.  (Uppsala  Universitets  Aarsskrift. 
Program,  I.)  Upsala,  Akad.  bokh.  1  kr. 

(c)  Modern  English. 

ALBERT,  F.,  Uber  Thomas  Heywoods  'The  Life  and  Death  of  Hector,'  eine  neue 
Bearbeitung  von  Lydgates  '  Troy  Book.'  (Miinchener  Beitrage  zur  roman. 
und  engl.  Phil.,  XLII.)  Leipzig,  Deichert.  4  M.  80. 

BARBOUR,  J.,  The  Bruce.  Edited  by  W.  M.  Mackenzie.  London,  Black. 
5s.  net. 

BEAUMONT,  F.  and  J.  FLETCHER,  Works,  Vol.  vi.  Edited  by  A.  R.  Waller. 
(Cambridge  English  Classics.)  Cambridge,  University  Press.  4s.  60?.  net. 

BEECHING,  H.  C.,  William  Shakespeare,  Player,  Playmaker  and  Poet.  A  Reply 
to  Mr  George  Greenwood.  London.  Smith,  Elder.  2s.  net. 

Beitrage  zur  Kunde  des  alteren  englischen  Dramas.  Herausg.  von  W.  Bang, 
xxui.  J.  Forde,  Dramatische  Werke,  herausg.  von  W.  Bang.  22  fr.  50. 
xxiv.  Everyman,  reprinted  by  W.  W.  Greg  from  the  edition  of  J.  Skot. 
2  fr.  xxv.  Bale's  Kynge  Johan  nach  der  Handschrift  herausg.  von 
W.  Bang.  1  fr.  xxvi.  Sir  Gyles  Goosecappe.  Nach  der  Quarto  1606 
herausg.  von  W.  Bang  und  R.  Brotanek.  4  fr.  50.  Louvain,  Uystpruyst. 


New  Publications  571 

Bible,  The  Authorised  Version  of  the  English,  1611.     5  vols.     (Cambridge 
English  Classics.)     Cambridge,  University  Press.     20s.  net. 

BOARDMAN,  G.  N.,  Shakespeare.    Five  Lectures.    New  York,  Revell.    1  dol.  net. 
BRADLEY,  A.  C.,  Oxford  Lectures  on  Poetry.     London,  Macmillan.     10s.  net. 

CAMPION,  T.,  Complete  English  Works.     Edited  by  A.  H.  Bullen.     London, 
Sidgwick  and  Jackson.     2s.  60?.  net. 

CARLYLE,  T.  and  JANE  W.,  Love  Letters.    Edited  by  Alexander  Carlyle.    2  vols. 
London,  Lane.     25s.  net. 

CLARKE,  M.  C.,  Shakespeare  Proverbs.     Edited  by  W.  J.  Rolfe.     New  York, 
Putnam.     1  dol.  50  net. 

CONANT,  M.  P.,  The  Oriental  Tale  in  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century. 
London,  Macmillan.     10s.  Gd.  net. 

COOK,  A.  S.,  Concordance  to  the  English  Poems  of  Thomas  Gray.     Boston, 
Houghton,  Mifflin  Co.     2  dol.  50  net. 

COSENTINO,  G.,  Le  Tragedie  di  Shakespeare.     Bologna,  Beltrami.     10  L. 

DE   QUINCEY,   T.,   Literary  Criticism.     Edited   by   H.   Darbishire.     London, 
Frowde.     2s.  6d.  net. 

DOWDEN,  E.,  Milton  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  1701-50.     (British  Academy.) 
London,  Frowde.     Is.  net. 

FLETCHER,  GILES  and  PHINEAS,  Poetical  Works.   Vol.  II.   Edited  by  F.  S.  Boas. 
(Cambridge  English  Classics.)     Cambridge,  University  Press.     4s.  6d.  net. 

GAYLEY,  C.  M.,  Plays  of  our  Forefathers  and  some  of  the  Traditions  upon  which 
the  Plays  were  founded.     London,  Chatto  and  Windus.     12s.  Qd.  net. 

GEEST,  S.,  Der  Sensualismus  bei  John  Keats.    (Beitrage  zur  neueren  Literatur- 
geschichte,  I.)     Heidelberg,  Winter.     1  M.  50. 

GOLL,  A.,  Criminal  Types  in  Shakespeare.     London,  Methuen.     5s.  net. 

GREENWOOD,  G.  G.,  In  re  Shakespeare.    Beeching  v.  Greenwood.    A  Rejoinder. 
London,  Lane.    2s.  6d.  net. 

HILL,  H.  W.,  Sidney's  Arcadia  and  the  Elizabethan  Drama.     (Univ.  of  Nevada 
Studies.)     Reno,  Nev.,  U.S.A. 

JOHNSON,  C.  F.,  Shakespeare  and  his  Critics.     Boston,  Houghton,  Mifflin  Co. 
1  dol.  50  net. 

KELLNER,  L.,   Die  englische   Literatur  im   Zeitalter  der   Konigin  Viktoria. 
Leipzig,  Tauchnitz.     10  M. 

LANIER,  S.,  Shakespere  and  his  Forerunners.     New  York,  Doubleday,  Page. 
1  dol.  60. 

LEACH,  A.  F.,  Milton  as  Schoolboy  and  Schoolmaster.     (British  Academy.) 
London,  Frowde.     Is.  net. 

LIVINGSTONE,  L.  S.,  A  Bibliography  of  the  First  Editions  in  book  form  of  the 
Writings  of  H.  W.  Longfellow.     New  York,  Dodd,  Mead.     3  dol.  net. 

LUBBOCK,  P.,  Samuel  Pepys.     (Literary  Lives  Series.)     London,  Hodder  and 
Stoughton.     3s.  Qd. 

MACKAIL,  S.  W.     Swinburne.     A  Lecture.     London,  Frowde.     Is.  net. 

Malone  Society  Reprints,  1908.     The  Tragedy  of  Locrine,  1595.    The  Interlude 
of  Calisto  and  Melebea.     The  Life  of  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  1600. 


572  New  Publications 

MEHR,  O.,  Neue  Beitrage  zur  Leekund*  und  Kritik,  insbesondere  zuin 
'  Casar  Borgia '  und  zur  '  Sophonisba.'  (Literarhistorische  Forschungen, 
xxxvu.)  Berlin,  Felber.  3  M. 

Milton  Memorial  Lectures,  1908.  Read  before  the  Royal  Society  of  Literature. 
Edited  by  P.  W.  Ames.  London,  Frowde.  6s.  net. 

OTWAY,  T.,  The  Orphan  and  Venice  Preserved.  Edited  by  C.  F.  McClumpha. 
(Belles-Lettres  Series.)  Boston,  D.  C.  Heath.  60  c.  net. 

PERCY,  T.  and  W.  SHENSTONE,  Ein  Briefwechsel  aus  der  Entstehungszeit  der 
'  Reliques  of  Ancient  English  Poetry.'  Herausg.  von  H.  Hecht.  (Quellen 
und  Forschungen,  in.)  Strassburg,  Triibner.  5  M. 

PANCOAST,  H.  S.,  An  Introduction  to  American  Literature.  London,  Bell. 
4s.  6d. 

PHILIP,  A.  J.,  A  Dickens  Dictionary.     London,  Routledge.     8s.  6d.  net. 

POE,  E.  A.,  Complete  Works.  10  vols.  Edited  by  E.  C.  Stedman  and 
G.  E.  Woodberry.  New  York,  Duffield.  15  dols. 

POE,  E.  A.,  The  Last  Lettei-s  to  Sarah  Helen  Whitman.  Edited  by  J.  A. 
Harrison.  New  York,  Putnam.  2  dol.  50. 

POETZSCHE,  R.,  Samuel  Richardsons  Belesenheit.  Eine  literarische  Unter- 
suchung.  (Kieler  Studien  zur  englischen  Philologie,  Neue  Folge,  iv.) 
Kiel,  Cordes.  3  M. 

RALEIGH,  W.,  Shakspeare.     (Eversley  Series.)     London,  Macmillan.     4s.  net. 

ROBERTSON,  J.  G.,  Milton's  Fame  on  the  Continent.  (British  Academy.) 
London,  Frowde.  Is.  net. 

RUSHTON,  W.  L.  Shakespeare  and  '  The  Arte  of  English  Poesie.'  Liverpool, 
H.  Young.  2s.  6d.  net. 

RUSHTON,  W.  L.,  Shakespeare's  Legal  Maxims.     Liverpool,  H.  Young.     2s.  net. 

RUSSELL,  C.  E.,  Thomas  Chatterton,  the  Marvellous  Boy.  London,  Richards. 
Is.  Gd.  net. 

SCHMIDT,  K.,  R.  Browning's  Verhaltnis  zu  Frankreich.  (Literarhistorische 
Forschungen,  xxxvm.)  Heidelberg,  Winter.  3  M.  50. 

SELINCOURT,  B.  de,  William  Blake.     London,  Duckworth.     7s.  6d.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  All's  Well  that  Ends  Well,  edited  by  W.  G.  B.  Stone  ;  The 
Merchant  of  Venice,  The  Tempest,  edited  by  F.  J.  Furnivall.  (Old  Spelling 
Edition.)  London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  Each  2s.  6d.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  Comedies,  Histories  and  Tragedies.  Faithfully  reproduced 
in  facsimile  from  the  edition  of  1632.  London,  Methuen.  84s.  net. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  King  Lear,  Macbeth,  Timon  of  Athens,  Antony  and 
Cleopatra,  Coriolanus,  Sonnets,  Poems  (2  parts).  (Renaissance  edition.) 
London,  G.  G.  Harrap.  Each  7s.  6d. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  Othello  in  Paralleldruck  nach  der  ersten  Quarto  und  ersten 
Folio  mit  den  Lesarten  der  zweiten  Quarto.  Herausg.  von  M.  M.  A. 
Schroer.  Heidelberg,  Winter.  1  M.  70. 

SHAKESPEARE,  W.,  The  Bankside  Restoration  Shakespeare,  iv.  Antony  and 
Cleopatra  by  J.  Dryden  ;  v.  A  Law  against  Lovers  by  W.  Davenant. 
Westfield,  N.J.,  Shakespeare  Press.  Each  5  dol. 

SIDGWICK,  F.,  The  Cavalier  to  his  Lady.  Love  poems  of  the  Seventeenth 
Century.  (King's  Classics.)  London,  Chatto  and  Windus.  Is.  60?.  net. 


New  Publications  573 

STANTON,  T.,  A  Manual  of  American  Literature.  New  York,  Putnam. 
1  doL  75  net. 

SWINBURNE,  A.  C.,  Three  Plays  of  Shakespeare.  (Library  of  Living  Thought.) 
London,  Harper.  2s.  60?.  net. 

SYLVESTER,  J.,  The  Divine  Weeks  mainly  translated  from  the  French  of 
William  de  Saluste,  lord  of  the  Bartas.  Edited  by  T.  W.  Haight. 
Wankesha,  Wis.,  H.  M.  Youmans.  2  dols. 

TENNYSON,  A.,  Select  Poems.  Edited  by  A.  MacMechan.  (Belles-Lettres 
Series,  Section  vi.)  Boston,  D.  C.  Heath.  60  c.  net. 

THOMPSON,  F.,  Shelley.     London,  Burns  and  Gates.     2s.  6d.  net. 

THOMSON,  J.,  Poetical  Works.  Edited  by  J.  L.  Robertson.  (Oxford  edition.) 
London,  Frowde. 

TUCKER,  S.  M.,  Verse  Satire  in  England  before  the  Renaissance.  (Columbia 
Univ.  Studies  in  English.)  New  York,  Macmillan.  1  dol.  net. 

TURBERVILE,  G.,  Booke  of  Hunting,  1576.  (Tudor  and  Stuart  Library.) 
London,  Frowde. 

VOIQT,  E.,  Shakespeares  Naturschilderungen.  (Anglistische  Forschungen, 
xxvin.)  Heidelberg,  Winter.  3  M.  80. 

WALTER,  E.,  Entstehungsgeschichte  von  W.  M.  Thackerays  'Vanity  Fair.' 
(Palaestra,  LXXIX.)  Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller.  4  M.  50. 

WARD,  A.  W.  and  A.  R.  WALLER,  The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature, 
in.  Renascence  and  Reformation.  Cambridge,  University  Press.  9s.  net. 

WEILEN,  A.  VON,  Hamlet  auf  der  deutschen  Biihne  bis  zur  Gegenwart. 
(Schriften  der  deutschen  Shakespeare-Gesellschaft,  in.)  Berlin,  G.  Reimer. 

4  M.  50. 

WILSON,  T.,  Arte  of  Rhetorique.  Edited  by  G.  H.  Mair.  (Tudor  and  Stuart 
Library.)  London,  Frowde.  5s.  net. 

WOODS,  M.  A.,  The  Characters  of  Paradise  Lost.     London,  J.  Ouseley.    2s.  net. 

German. 

(a)     General  (incl.  Language). 

BIESE,  A.,  Deutsche  Literaturgeschichte.     II.     Munich,  C.  H.  Beck.     5  M.  50. 

FASSBENDER,  J.,  Die  schlettstadter  Vergilglossen  und  ihre  Verwandten.  (Unter- 
suchungen  zur  deutschen  Sprachgeschichte,  n.)  Strassburg,  Triibner. 

5  M. 

FRANCK,  J.,  Altfrankische  Grammatik.  Laut-  und  Flexionslehre.  (Gramma- 
tiken  der  althochdeutschen  Dialekte,  n.)  Gottingen,  Vandenhoeck  und 
Ruprecht.  7  M.  80. 

GERBET,  E.,  Grammatik  der  Mundart  des  Vogtlandes.  Lautlehre.  (Sammlung 
kurzer  Grammatiken  deutscher  Mundarten,  vm.)  Leipzig,  Breitkopf  und 
Hartel.  18  M. 

KONNECKE,  G.,  Deutscher  Literaturatlas.  Mit  einer  Einfiihrung  von  Chr.  Muff. 
Marburg,  Elw^rt.  6  M. 

MOSER,  V.,  Historisch-grammatische  Einfuhrung  in  die  friihueuhochdeutsche 
Schriftdialekte.  Halle,  Waisenhaus.  8  M. 

SCHINDLING,  B.,  Die  Murbacher  Glossen.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  altesten  Sprach- 
geschichte des  Oberrheins.  (Untersuchungen  zur  deutschen  Sprachge- 
schichte, I.)  Strassburg,  Triibner.  4  M. 


574  New  Publications 

SCHONHOFF,  H.,  Emslandische  Gramrnatik.  Laut-  und  Formenlehre  der 
emslandischen  Mundarten.  (Saramlung  german.  Elementar-  und  Hand- 
bucher,  I,  8.)  Heidelberg,  Winter.  7  M. 

THOMAS,  C.,  A  History  of  German  Literature.     London,  Heinemann.     6s. 

WIEGAND,  F.  L.  K.,  Deutsches  Worterbuch.  5.  Aufl.  i.  Band.  Giessen, 
Topelmann.  12  M. 

WREDE,  F.,  Deutsche  Dialektgeographie.  Berichte  und  Studien  tiber  G.  Wenkers 
Sprachatlas  des  Deutschen  Reiches,  i-n.  Marburg,  Ehvert.  3  M.  20  and 
5M. 

(b)  Old  and  Middle  High  German. 

BITHELL,  I.,  The  Minnesingers.  Vol.  I.  Translations.  London,  Longmans. 
5s.  net. 

BOER,  K.  C.,  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Ursprung  und  die  Entwicklung  der 
Nibelungensaga.  ill.  Band.  Halle,  Waisenhaus.  8  M. 

Deutsche  Texte  des  Mittelalters.  Herausg.  von  der  konigl.  preuss.  Akademie 
der  Wissenschaften.  x.  Der  sogenannte  St.  Georgener  Prediger,  aus  der 
Freiburger  und  der  Karlsruher  Handschrift,  herausg.  von  K.  Rieder. 

15  M.      xu.  Hans  Folz,  Meisterlieder  aus  der  Miinchener  Originalhand- 
schrift  und  der  Weimarer  Handschrift  Q.  566  herausg.  von  A.  L.  Mayer. 

16  M.  60.      xiv.    Kleinere  mittelhochdeutsche  Erzahlungen,  Fabeln  und 
Lehrgedichte.      II.    Die  Wolfenbuttler  Priamelhandschrift.     Herausg.  von 
K.  Euling.     9  M.     Berlin,  Weidmann. 

MEIER,  J.,  Werden  und  Leben  des  Volksepos.   Rede.    Halle,  Niemeyer.    1  M.  20. 

POHNERT,  L.,  Kritik  und  Metrik  von  Wolframs  Titurel.  (Prager  deutsche 
Studien,  xu.)  Prague,  Bellmanu.  3  kr.  50. 

RANKE,  F.,  Sprache  und  Stil  im  Walschen  Gast  des  Thomasin  von  Circlaria. 
(Palaestra,  LXVIII.)  Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller.  4  M.  80. 

RUNGE,  O.,  Die  Metamorphosen-Verdeutschung  Albrechts  von  Halberstadt. 
(Palaestra,  LXXIII.)  Berlin,  Mayer  und  Miiller.  4  M.  50. 

SCHONBACH,  A.  E.,  Mitteilungen  aus  altdeutschen  Handschriften.  x.  Die 
Regensburger  Klarissenregel.  (Aus  '  Sitzungsber.  d.  k.  Akad.  der  Wis- 
senschaften in  Wien.')  Wien,  Holder.  2  kr. 

SIEVERS,  P.,  Die  Accente  in  althochdeutschen  und  altsachsischen  Handschriften. 
(Palaestra,  cvn.)  Berlin,  Mayer  und  Muller.  4  M. 

(c)  Modern  German. 

ARNDT,  E.  M.,  Samtliche  Werke.  Bearbeitet  von  E.  Schirmer,  ix,  x,  xii,  xin. 
Magdeburg,  Verlags-Anstalt.  Each  3  M. 

BEREND,  E.,  Jean  Pauls  Asthetik.  (Forschungen  zur  neueren  Literatur- 
geschichte,  35.)  Berlin,  Duncker.  13  M.  50. 

BODE,  W.,  Goethes  Leben  im  Garten  am  Stern.     Berlin,  Mittler.     5  M. 

BOHTLINGK,  A.,  Shakespeare  und  unsere  Klassiker.  i.  Lessing  und  Shakespeare. 
Leipzig,  Eckardt.  3  M. 

BRENTANO,  C.,  Samtliche  Werke.  Herausg.  von  C.  Schiiddekopf.  v.  Godwi. 
Miinchen,  Muller.  6  M. 

BRENTANO,  C.,  and  S.  MEREAU,  BriefwechseL  Herausg.  von  H.  Amelung. 
2  Bde.  Leipzig,  Insel-Verlag.  7  M. 


New  Publications  575 

DICKERHOFF,  H.,  Die  Entstehung  der  Jobsiade.  (Forschungen  und  Funde,  I.) 
Miinster,  Aschendorff.  5  M. 

ECKERTZ,  E.,  Heine  und  sein  Witz.  (Literarhistorische  Forschungen,  xxxvi.) 
Berlin,  Felber.  4  M. 

EICHLER,  F.,  Die  deutsche  Bibel  des  Erasmus  Stratter  in  der  Universitats- 
bibliothek  zu  Graz.  Leipzig,  Harrassowitz.  6  M. 

FEISE,  E.,  Der  Knittelvers  des  jungen  Goethe.  Leipzig,  Roder  und  Schunke. 
1  M.  80. 

FITTBOGEN,  G.,  Die  sprachliche  und  metrische  Form  der  Hymnen  Goethes. 
Genetisch  dargestellt.  Halle,  Niemeyer.  4  M. 

FRIEDRICH,  TH.,  Die  'Anmerkungen  iibers  Theater'  des  Dichters  J.  M.  R. 
Lenz.  (Probefahrten,  xm.)  Leipzig,  Voigtlander.  4  M.  80. 

GEIBEL,  E.,  Jugendbriefe.   Bonn,  Berlin,  Griechenland.    Berlin,  K.  Curtius.  5  M. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Werke.  Weimar- Ausgabe.  iv  (Briefe),  43,  45,  46.  Weimar, 
H.  Bohlau.  6  M.  80  ;  6  M.  80  ;  6  M.  20. 

GOETHE,  J.  W.  VON,  Briefe  an  Charlotte  von  Stein.  Herausg.  von  J.  Frankel. 
Kritische  Gesamtausgabe.  3  Bande.  Jena,  Diederichs.  9  M. 

GRABBE,  C.  D.,  Samtliche  Werke  in  6  Banden.  Herausg.  von  0.  Nieten. 
Leipzig,  Hesse.  3  M. 

GRANTZON,  H.,  Geschichte  des  Gottinger  und  des  Vossischen  Musenalmanachs. 
(Berliner  Beitrage  zur  german.  und  roman.  Philologie,  xxxiv.)  Berlin, 
Ebering.  2  M.  80. 

HAERTEL,  M.  H.,  German  Literature  in  American  Magazines,  1846  to  1880. 
(Univ.  of  Wisconsin  Bulletin.  Philology  and  Literature  Series.)  Madison, 
Wis.  U.S.A.  50  c. 

HAUFFEN,  A.,  Neue  Fischart-Studien.  (Erganzungshefte  zu  Euphorion,  vn.) 
Vienna,  Fromme.  7  kr. 

HEINSE,  W.,  Samtliche  Werke.  Herausg.  von  C.  Schiiddekopf.  vn.  Leipzig, 
Insel-Verlag.  6  M. 

HERDER,  J.  G.  VON,  Samtliche  Werke.  Herausg.  von  B.  Suphan.  xiv.  Berlin, 
Weidmann.  9  M. 

HILSENBECK,  F.,  Aristophanes  und  die  deutsche  Literatur  des  18.  Jahrhunderts. 
(Berliner  Beitrage  zur  german.  und  roman.  Philologie,  xxxiv.)  Berlin, 
Ebering.  2  M.  80. 

JAHN,  O.,  Goethe  und  Leipzig,     Leipzig,  Xenien-Verlag.     2  M. 

KNIPPEL,  R.,  Schillers  Verhaltnis  zur  Idylle.  (Breslauer  Beitrage  zur  Literatur- 
geschichte,  vin.)  Leipzig,  Quelle  und  Meyer.  3  M. 

KOSSMANN,    E.    F.,    Der   deutsche    Musenalmanach,   1833-39.      The   Hague, 

M.  Nijhoft'.     7  fl.  50. 

LENZ,  J.  M.  R.,  Gesainmelte  Schriften  in  4  Banden.  Herausg.  von  E.  Lewy. 
I.  Dramen.  Berlin,  Cassirer.  5  M.  50. 

LICHTENBERG,  G.,  C.,  Aphorismen.  Nach  den  Handschriften  herausg.  von 
A.  Leitzman.  v  (1793-99).  (Deutsche  Literaturdenkmale  des  18.  und  19. 
Jahrh.,  141.)  Berlin,  Behr.  5  M. 

LILIENCRON,  D.  VON,  Samtliche  Werke.  xi,  xn,  xv.  Berlin,  Schuster  und 
Loeffler.  Each  2  M. 

LUDWIG,  A.,  Schiller  und  die  deutsche  Nachwelt.     Berlin,  Weidmann.     12  M. 


576  JVew  Publications 

MUKET,  M.,  La  litterature  allemande  d'aujourd'hui.     Paris,  Perrin.     3  fr.  50. 

NADLER,  J.,  Eichendorffs  Lyrik.  Ihre  Technik  und  ihre  Geschichte.  (Prager 
deutsche  Studien,  x.)  Prague,  Bellmann.  6  M. 

OLSCHKI,  L.,  G.  B.  Guarinis  Pastor  Fido  in  Deutschland.  Leipzig,  Haessel. 
2  M.  50. 

PAYER  VON  THURN,  R.,  Wiener  Haupt-  und  Staatsaktionen.  (Schriften  des 
literarischen  Vereins  in  Wien.)  Vienna,  Fromme. 

PFLUG,  E.,  Suchensinn  uud  seine  Dichtungen.  (Germanistische  Abhandlungen, 
xxxu.)  Breslau,  Marcus.  3  M.  20. 

PREITZ,  M.,  Gottfried  Kellers  dramatische  Bestrebungen.  (Beitrage  zur  deut- 
schen  Literaturwisseuschaft,  xn.)  Marburg,  Elwert.  4  M.  40. 

RAUSSE,  H.,  Zur  Geschichte  des  spanischen  Schelmenromans  in  Deutschland. 
(Miinstersche  Beitrage  zur  neueren  Literaturgeschichte,  vin.)  Munster, 
Schoningh.  2  M.  40. 

SAAR,  F.  VON,  Samtliche  Werke  in  2  Banden.  Herausg.  von  J.  Minor.  Leipzig, 
Hesse.  8  M. 

SCHENKER,  M.,  Ch.  Batteux  und  seine  Nachahmungstheorie  in  Deutschland. 
(Untersuchungen  zur  neueren  Sprach-  und  Literaturgeschichte.  Neue 
Folge,  II.)  Leipzig,  Haessel.  3  M. 

SCHILLER,  CHARLOTTE  VON,  und  ihre  Freunde.  Auswahl  aus  ihrer  Korrespondenz. 
Herausg.  von  L.  Geiger.  Berlin,  Bondy.  5  M. 

SCHNEIDERWIRTH,  M.,  Das  katholische  deutsche  Kirchenlied  unter  dem  Ein- 
flusse  Gellerts  und  Klopstocks.  (Forschungen  und  Funde,  I.)  Miinster, 
Aschendorff.  5  M. 

SEILER,  J.,  Die  Anschauungen  Goethes  von  der  deutschen  Sprache.  Stuttgart, 
Cotta.  3  M. 

SENGER,  J.  H.,  Der  bildliche  Ausdruck  in  den  Werken  Heinrich  von  Kleists. 
(Teutonia,  vin.)  Leipzig,  Avenarius.  2  M. 

SEUFFERT,  B.,  Prolegomena  zu  einer  Wieland-Ausgabe.  v.  (Aus  'Abhand- 
lungen d.  preuss.  Akad.  der  Wissenschaften.')  Berlin,  Reimer.  4  M. 

SIMONSEN,  K.,  Goethes  Naturf01else.     Copenhagen,  Hagerup.     4  kr.  75. 
SOMMER,  R.,  Goethe  im  Lichte  der  Vererbungslehre.    Leipzig,  J.  A.  Barth.    3  M. 

SPIERO,  H.,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Lyrik  seit  Claudius.  (Aus  Natur  und 
Geisteswelt,  254.)  Leipzig,  Trlibner.  1  M. 

VETTER,  F.,  Der  junge  Haller.  Nach  seinem  Briefwechsel  mit  J.  Gossler  aus 
den  Jahren  1728-38.  Bern,  Francke.  2  fr. 

Voss,  J.  H.,  Homers  Odyssee.  Herausg.  von  H.  Feigl.  Vienna,  Konegen. 
12  kr.  50. 

WALZEL,  0.  F.,  Hebbel-Probleme.  Studien.  (Untersuchungen  zur  neueren 
Sprach-  uud  Literaturgeschichte.  Neue  Folge,  I.)  Leipzig,  Haessel.  3  M. 

WIELAND,  C.  M.,  Gesammelte  Schriften.  Herausg.  von  der  deutschen  Koni- 
mission  der  kgl.  preuss.  Akademie.  I.  Abteilung,  Werke.  1.  Poetische 
Jugendwerke.  n.  Abteilung,  tibersetzungen.  1.  Shakespears  theatralische 
Werke,  1—2.  Berlin,  Weidmann.  9  M.  ;  7  M.  20. 

WOLF-CIRIAN,  F.,  Grillparzers  Frauengestalten.     Stuttgart,  Cotta.     4  M. 


CAMBRIDGE  :     PRINTED    BY    JOHN    CLAY,    M.A.    AT    THE    UNIVERSITY    PRESS. 


PB 

M65 


The  Modern  language  review 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO 
LIBRARY